Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 16 March.

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 16 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to enable courts to issue sentences of corporal punishment for certain crimes of violence.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Unfortunately, I have no plans to reintroduce corporal punishment into the sentencing powers of the criminal court.

Mr. Winterton: I am sorry to receive that reply. Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite the Government's herculean efforts to reduce crime in recent years, crime and the fear of crime continue to blight our lives? Does he not think that those young people who commit offences of violence against the individual should be in receipt of a dose of their own medicine and that the maxim "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is more appropriate and relevant today than ever before?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which will strike a chord with many people in this nation. He is also right to talk about the fear of crime. Nevertheless, we must not forget that the last year for which figures are available saw a remarkable drop in levels of crime—down 5.5 per cent.—following a 1 per cent. drop the year before. I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point of view that a punishment of that kind would satisfy the desire of many people, but the deterrent value might be slightly more questionable. We have a wide range of penalties which, if they are

used by the courts in all the appropriate circumstances, should be more than adequate for some of the young hooligans that we have to contend with today.

Mr. Maginnis: Is the Minister aware that, if he reconsidered his decision on that measure, it would have a significant effect in Northern Ireland in so far as it would bring the Government into line with the IRA Sinn Fein, to whose wishes, ethos and practices they have tried so hard to concede in the past few weeks?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman lays a tempting trap, but it is not one into which I wish to step at present.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act

Mr. James Hill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 against crime; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The Act received Royal Assent only last November, and it is too soon to say what effect it has had, but I am confident that, as the Police Federation has said, it will
enhance the stature and ability of the criminal justice system to reduce crime, bring criminals to justice and significantly reduce the fear of crime, thereby improving the quality of life for many members of society".

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in some cases the law seems to protect the yobbos? I refer to the case in which a person who harassed a family, threatening to throw a baby out of a railway carriage, but was not punished; the policeman who hit the person doing the harassing was fined £150 while the young yobbo got away scot free. For the sake of the British public, we have to tighten up on that sort of harassment of innocent people by yobbos.

Mr. Howard: While I entirely understand the indignation that my hon. Friend expresses, which I am sure will be felt by many people, he will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases, especially as I remain the final appellate authority for police disciplinary matters. My hon. Friend will also understand that the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts are independent and that I have no responsibility for them.

Mr. Bermingham: As certain provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are not yet in place, in so far as they are not yet operative, will the Home Secretary reconsider the caution and the right to silence in the light of recent rulings by the European Court to the effect that there is a right to silence?

Mr. Howard: About two thirds of the Act are in force and I have no plans to look again at the caution or the changes that we have made to the so-called right of silence. I am confident that they do not conflict with any of our international obligations.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that the courts use positively and purposefully the stronger powers given to them, especially in dealing with young people, and


that the public are sick and tired of seeing young offenders—and young thugs, in particular—apparently walking away scot free from our legal system?

Mr. Howard: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take regarding the future organisation and level of criminal injuries compensation.

Mr. Howard: It would be premature to take any action in advance of the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. In the meantime, we are continuing to take note of any comments or representations made to us about the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

Mr. Ainger: In the light of that, is the Home Secretary aware of the case of Miss Merlyn Nuttall who, three years ago, was raped, strangled with a cheese wire, stabbed to the bone in her neck with a broken bottle and left for dead in a burning room? Last week, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarded her £76,101 compensation. How can the Home Secretary justify the fact that, under his tariff scheme, victims assaulted in that way today would receive only £7,500? Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary is only claiming to be hard on criminals, whereas in fact he is being hard on victims?

Mr. Howard: I am aware of the facts of that case but, as I have said many times before, unless and until the Opposition are prepared to give a commitment that, were they ever to come back into government, they would restore the old scheme in its entirety, it is pointless for the hon. Gentleman and his friends to make arguments of that type. The truth is that at least 60 per cent. of victims will receive at least as much or more under the tariff scheme, which will remain the most generous scheme of compensation for criminal injuries in the world.

Mr. David Atkinson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether those responsible for the criminal injuries are made to contribute towards the cost of the compensation to the victims, and if so, in what way, and if not, why not?

Mr. Howard: The courts certainly have the power to make orders of that type, and they frequently do so.

Mr. Michael: What kind of example is the Home Secretary setting for young yobs when he seeks to avoid responsibility for the consequences of his actions, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) in the example that he gave? Does the Home Secretary still not realise that his rhetoric about victims has no effect when people can see the indelible effect of his one genuine policy, which is to cut the total sum available to victims, and especially to cut the level of compensation available for the victims of the most horrific crimes?

Mr. Howard: Far from being cut, the sum will continue to increase. We have had enough synthetic indignation from the hon. Gentleman and his friends. If they care as much about that topic as they say they

do, they would make the commitment that they have consistently failed to make. In the absence of such a commitment, what they say on the subject is so much hot air.

Mr. Fabricant: We would all like the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to increase its funds—as, indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend has said that it has—but is not our scheme already seven times more generous than that in France and 20 times more generous than that in Germany?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. It is also more generous than the whole of the rest of the European Community and more generous than in the United States.

Police Establishment, North Yorkshire

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the police establishment in North Yorkshire.

Mr. Maclean: Since 1979, the approved establishment of the North Yorkshire police has increased by 90 to 1,418. The budget for the North Yorkshire police will increase by 8 per cent. for next year, which will mean a real and substantial increase in resources for the force to spend as the chief constable thinks fit.

Mr. Bayley: According to the most recent figures, 24 fewer police officers are serving in North Yorkshire now than in 1979. How does that square with the Government's manifesto pledges to be tough on crime? Will the Minister give a guarantee to the people of North Yorkshire that when the new arrangements for funding the police are introduced in April, he will increase the number of police officers serving in the county at least to the authorised established figure of 1,418 which he mentioned?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been following what has been happening in the House for the past year. The Government will cease to set establishment figures. The chief constable can use his 8 per cent. increase in next year's budget to spend as he sees fit on officers, civilians, a mixture of both, or technology. The hon. Gentleman's figures are right, but they are only part of the story. Had he bothered to check with North Yorkshire police, he would have discovered that, while the overall number of officers in the force has declined, it has been at the expense of support and administration staff, and the force assures me that it has 38 more constables out on the streets on operational duties, which is surely to be welcomed.

Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulty currently faced by North Yorkshire police in rural areas in policing demonstrations by animal rights activists outside farms? Does he agree that that is yet a further reason why we need to concentrate new and more resources on policing in rural areas which, representing a rural constituency as he does, my hon. Friend knows only too well is so important for farmers and people who live in our villages?

Mr. Maclean: It is important that the law is upheld throughout the whole country, and I am confident that the 43 police forces in England and Wales will continue


to uphold people's legitimate right to go about their lawful and legal business. That will be done in North Yorkshire, Sussex, Essex and throughout the country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that rural areas require adequate policing. The budget increase of 8 per cent. for North Yorkshire police will enable the chief constable to deploy his resources appropriately and in the best possible way, giving maximum coverage to all parts of the county.

Sussex Police (Funding)

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future funding of the Sussex police.

Mr. Maclean: Sussex will have £145.78 million available for 1995–96, an increase of £14.2 million or 10.8 per cent. over 1994–95. In addition, it will not have to find £1.14 million, or 0.8 per cent., to pay for common police services. We have also allocated £7.62 million for building projects and the purchase of equipment. Those significant increases in resources will help Sussex police to continue their excellent performance.

Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware how widely his generosity in the settlement for Sussex has been welcomed by my constituents in Eastbourne and how much they agree with the chairman of the new police authority, Dr. Walsh, who talks of
a budget to be proud of",
particularly the recent announcement of an increase of more than 100 new bobbies on the beat in Sussex?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am glad that Sussex is using the increased funds available for that purpose. My hon. Friend has given us only half the story, however, as according to the latest survey in the Police Review magazine Sussex is to recruit not only 110 extra bobbies but 123 extra civilians. That seems to match the pattern around the country, where the survey reveals there could be 400 extra officers next year and 900 extra civilians. It is a safe bet that the vast majority of the extra civilians whom the police service intends to recruit will release yet more bobbies for operational duty, adding to the 7,000 extra officers released for operational work since 1983 through the civilianisation programme.

Warwickshire Police (Funding)

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about levels of funding for the Warwickshire police.

Mr. Maclean: Representations about the proposed level of funding for 1995-96 have been received from the acting chief constable and from the chairman of the police authority. My right hon. and learned Friend and I have also received letters on that subject from my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Is he aware of the growing concern in Warwickshire about levels of police funding? It is alleged that, because of inadequate funds, police numbers will remain the same with no further increase.

I am also advised that there will be no additional training and that there is a distinct possibility that promotion within the force will be restricted.
Added to that are the difficulties created by funding the policing of demonstrations currently taking place at Coventry airport in connection with live animal exports. All that adds up to a pretty grim picture for Warwickshire. What hope can my hon. Friend give me and other Warwickshire Members about funding for Warwickshire?

Mr. Maclean: The biggest item of police expenditure—police pay—is due to increase by 2.5 per cent. next year, but Warwickshire's overall budget will increase by 5.3 per cent. Of course, we will not take back the 0.8 per cent. for common police services. Warwickshire police should have more than 6 per cent. in new resources available to them next year. In those circumstances, I hope that they will not experience the difficulties to which my hon. Friend alluded. I believe that that will enable a good but very small force such as Warwickshire to continue its excellent record.
As to the policing of demonstrations, I know that some concern was expressed that costs were running at £27,000 per day, but I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not so; that was the one-off cost for the day of the funeral at Coventry cathedral. The daily cost to Warwickshire is about £5,000, and the Warwickshire force is sharing the policing operation with the West Midlands police and splitting the cost in that way.

Mr. Olner: Will the Minister respond to the honest representations that have been made? Over a number of years, the police force in Warwickshire has reduced senior ranks so that more money can be spent on the constabulary for policing the beat. I wish that the Minister would announce a settlement for Warwickshire that is as generous as the aforementioned settlement for Sussex.

Mr. Maclean: I have listened carefully to representations that I have received from all over the country and we introduced a formula in an attempt to get a fairer distribution of resources. To put the situation into perspective, since 1979 spending on the Warwickshire police has increased by 125 per cent. in real terms. The national average is 92 per cent. The strength of the Warwickshire police force has increased by 23 per cent. and the national average increase is 14 per cent.
I pay tribute to Warwickshire for having civilianised 122 posts since 1985, which has released more bobbies for the beat. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary suggests that a further 80 posts could be civilianised. Perhaps Warwickshire will spend some of the 6 per cent. extra resource allocation this year to continue its successful civilianisation programme.

Prison Regime

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make the prison regime more rigorous.

Mr. Howard: Prison regimes should be rigorous, demanding and constructive. This year the Prison Service will be introducing a new system to ensure that


privileges are earned by good behaviour and lost by bad behaviour. I have taken steps to strengthen the prison discipline system.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will the Home Secretary put a stop to Sky Television and nine-hole golf courses in our prisons, together with the practice of inmates sending wardens out of prison to get steak and chips? Senior citizens in my constituency of Welwyn Hatfield are concerned when criminals want to get into prison and not out of it. They also want to know—[Interruption.] —if the lot opposite ever got into power, would the nation be subject to hard labour like it was in 1979, with a 98 per cent. tax rate and 27 per cent. inflation?

Mr. Howard: I have no doubts about answering the last part of my hon. Friend's question in the affirmative. I think that the other points that he raised were covered in my original answer.

Mr. George Howarth: Is it not time that the Home Secretary understood—as everyone else does—that tough words and no policy are no substitute for a proper approach to our prisons? After almost 16 years in power, does he not realise that the Government have failed to produce a drug-free and secure prison system which keeps offenders properly locked up? Is he aware that failure is being trailed by Lord Tumim, the chief inspector of prisons, and the boards of prison visitors? When will the Home Secretary do something to ensure that our prisons have proper work-based regimes and are drug-free? We need prison regimes which work and positively rehabilitate people, rather than the mess that he has got the prison service into at the moment.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman were remotely interested in what is happening in our prisons, he would know that we have already started our mandatory drugs testing programme, that we are taking firm action to deal with the all too prevalent problem of drugs in prisons, that we are implementing the security recommendations in Sir John Woodcock's report and that we are dealing with these matters. Effective action is indeed being taken.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: In view of the successes in relation to recidivism, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing into Britain a pilot scheme along the lines of the American boot camps? Will he bear in mind that they provide training in discipline and respect for other people, which we have lost since the abolition of national service, training in the work ethic and respect for other people in society—particularly families—and that the advantages of those camps are beginning to percolate the American system and ought to be imitated here?

Mr. Howard: I know that my hon. and learned Friend and the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited a boot camp in the United States, as have I and a number of Prison Service officials. We are currently evaluating the study that has been undertaken of boot camps in the United States. I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for some of the facets of the boot camp system and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Schengen Agreement

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Schengen agreement.

Mr. Howard: I understand that the Schengen agreement is due to come into the operation as between seven of the Schengen states on 26 March for an initial period of three months. The United Kingdom is not a party to the agreement and has no intention of applying for membership, which would be inconsistent with the maintenance of our system of frontier controls.

Mr. Trimble: Has the Home Secretary studied carefully the arrangements within the seven Schengen countries for close police co-operation, which is appropriate for them as they are creating a common travel area? As there is already a common travel area in the British Isles, does he not consider it appropriate to have the same levels and the same provisions for police co-operation operating in the British Isles as will be operating within the Schengen system?

Mr. Howard: There has been considerable improvement in recent years in the extent of co-operation between the police in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and I hope that will continue.

Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that our constituents will never accept that the control of immigration into Britain should depend on the uncertain reliability of policing of the coasts and borders of such countries as Italy, Greece and Austria, and that if the European Union ever dreams of trying to force such a policy on us it will begin—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken with his question on this particular agreement. Is there another Conservative Member—

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get the right question. I am sure that he knows what the agreement means.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Schengen agreement represents the ambition of the hard core of the European Union to do away with internal frontiers? Can he allay the concerns arising from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's visit to the Brussels Council today and confirm that a common visa does not bring any nearer a common system of immigration and the abolition of our frontiers?

Mr. Howard: I can certainly and without any equivocation give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will also be pleased to know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is placing a parliamentary scrutiny reserve on the common visa format regulation which is before the Council of Ministers today.

Mr. Straw: I welcome what the Secretary of State had to say about not implementing the Schengen agreement in Britain. Does he agree that it would be quite inappropriate for us as an island to adopt that


agreement and replace border controls with a potentially less effective but more repressive system of internal controls, street stops and compulsory identity cards?
Also, will the Home Secretary resist the imposition of any list of European Union common visas that, as currently proposed, would impose visa requirements on visitors from 29 mainly black Commonwealth countries, including Zambia, Zimbabwe, Trinidad and Barbados—but not one white Commonwealth country? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that such a policy would do nothing for equal rights or race relations in this country?

Mr. Howard: The visa list is still under discussion in the Council of Ministers. It is no use the hon. Gentleman making such points when he and his party committed themselves to a policy document that said that majority voting in the European Community should become the rule.

Mr. Salmond: Does not the Home Secretary feel foolish, at a time when all political parties in Northern Ireland are in favour of the common travel area through the island of Ireland, that members of the Government and Labour Front Benches are hostile to the sense of the Schengen agreement? When will members of both Front Benches stop pandering to the prejudices of their Back Benchers?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will find, much to his electoral cost when the time comes, that the people of Scotland are as enthusiastic about the retention of external frontier controls as are the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Prisoners

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

Mr. Howard: On Tuesday 7 March 1995 a total of 50,804 Prison Service prisoners were in custody in England and Wales.

Sir David Knox: Why is it necessary to lock up more people in prison in this country than in most other west European countries? Is not there a cheaper and more effective form of punishment for at least some of the people who end up in prison?

Mr. Howard: I advise my hon. Friend to view comparisons with other European Union countries with great caution. The latest figures available to me show that the number of prisoners per 100,000 population is higher in Spain, Portugal and Austria; the same as this country in Italy; and nearly the same in France.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Is the Home Secretary concerned about the large increase in the number of women sent to prison, which has increased 40 per cent. in the past two years? Many of them are fine defaulters. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving magistrates the same option as their counterparts in Scotland to issue supervised attendance orders to fine defaulters?

Mr. Howard: Courts have a wide range of sentences at their disposal, and they decide which sentence is appropriate in any particular case.

Whitemoor Prison

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to visit Her Majesty's prison Whitemoor to discuss prison policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: I visited Whitemoor prison on 10 October 1994. I have no plans for a further visit.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I visited Whitemoor prison, just outside my constituency, last Monday? As well as meeting the excellent new governor, Mr. Brody Clark, I met many prison officers. The majority of them, while believing that there should be a balance between toughness and rehabilitation, feel strongly that when it comes to prisoners wearing their own clothes, doing their own cooking and receiving as many as five visits a month, there should be more emphasis on punishment.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest. He will have heard the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), which dealt with many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham).

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Home Secretary confirm that in his tough, rigorous prison system it is possible for IRA terrorists to carry Semtex from one prison to another?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows full well of the dreadful events at Whitemoor prison, which the House considered on a previous occasion at some length.

Prisons (Drug Abuse)

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to introduce to encourage greater vigilance among prison staff in respect to drug abuse in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): A new and comprehensive Prison Service drugs strategy will be announced shortly. It will contain a number of measures aimed at helping prison staff to be more vigilant in reducing the supply of drugs within prison. The new compulsory drug testing programme now being introduced will help further by identifying many more drug misusers than at present.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware of what I learnt recently during a visit to a prison in my constituency, which is what is known as the mogadon factor? It is the tacit approval of prisoners obtaining drugs because when they are stoned they are more docile and more easily placated. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is such condonation of the use of drugs, it is the Government's duty and that of prison governors to ensure that it is stamped out?

Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend that reducing the level of drug misuse of any sort is one of


the Prison Service's seven strategic priorities for 1994-97. The strategy that will be announced will embrace these very matters.

Mr. Tipping: Does the Minister recall that Judge Tumim, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, has recently reported on Styal women's prison, stating that almost all the prisoners there are using cannabis and that 80 per cent. of them are using opium? Does he recall also that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, wrote in November 1993 warning of the problem? Why has action not been taken to resolve the problem?

Mr. Baker: A great deal of action has been taken. Research and resources have been mobilised. Work has already started on the drug programme in 12 prison establishments. The strategy that will be outlined shortly will reveal that a comprehensive training programme to enable staff better to recognise drugs and the introduction of mandatory drug testing for prisoners will be included. The problems are being addressed, and they will be addressed even more in future.

Sir Terence Higgins: Will the proposals include provision for physical barriers to prevent drugs from being passed from visitors to prisoners in prisons where there is known drug abuse?

Mr. Baker: Yes. That is one of the matters that is being taken up in the strategy.

Broadcasting (Violent Material)

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is being undertaken by his department into the levels of violence in society and the broadcasting of violent material.

Mr. Maclean: The Home Office is funding a research project which will look at whether it is possible to identify images and concepts in videos which appeal to, and have a greater effect upon, young offenders, both at the time of viewing and subsequently.

Mr. Alton: I welcome the new research, which I understand will be undertaken over the next couple of years. Does the Minister accept, however, that common sense alone tells us that what we see is bound to have some effect upon us? Is he aware of the "Panorama" programme, which revealed recently that up to 10 per cent. of people who are predisposed to commit violent acts are likely to have them triggered by what they see?
Will the Minister take the opportunity to condemn the makers of violent television programmes, videos and films in which violence is glorified? Will he take the opportunity also to condemn those who set violence in an amoral context and who see the cultivation of violence as the ultimate fashion accessory of the 1990s?

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman says. It is true that the research conducted to date is inconclusive, but common sense tells us—this is the Government's firm view—that video and television images must have an effect. If television does not influence behaviour, why should hard-nosed capitalists spend £3,000 million a year on advertising? Of course television is bound to influence behaviour. There is a heavy burden on everyone who makes films—not only videos but those who are in charge of news

programmes as well—to ensure that if there are scenes of violence they are set in a relevant context, that they are not gratuitous and that they are not included merely for titillation.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend confident that the research project will deliver valuable results? I understand that much of the large budget of the Home Office that has been spent over the years on research has resulted in little of that research being used in the making of policy. Is he able to give us an assurance that that is not the case?

Mr. Maclean: I can give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that, whatever the results of the research, the Government will implement them. I might not agree with the conclusions. We have tried to focus on the research. We commissioned it to seek to establish whether it is possible to identify certain images of concepts in videos that might appeal to youngsters of a certain disposition. For example, and without going into detail, my hon. Friend may watch the film "Terminator II"; he may or he may not; certain parts of it may appeal to him. Research has shown that some parts of the film—it is interesting that there are some especially horrific scenes—are of particular interest to young offenders. If we can identify the trigger mechanisms, we might be better able to guide censors in future.

Mr. Straw: While research directed specifically at the effect of violence on young offenders is welcome, does the Minister not accept that it is likely that the gratuitous violence that is seen on television, videos and through other media is corrupting not only potential young offenders but all young people, since it is bound to reduce their tolerance to violence? Although research is essential, it is also essential that action is taken, particularly by people like the British Board of Film Classification, to ensure that the gratuitous violence that is now on our screens is cut out.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, we introduced new statutory criteria for the BBFC to have special regard to when classifying works. We also brought computer chips and cartridges under the scope of the Act for the first time. We gave trading standards officers new powers to deal with videos and introduced a new custodial sentence for the supply of unclassified video material.
I hope, by this summer, to lay before the House orders that will narrow the category of video works that are exempt from the requirement of classification, and to bring in powers to review old works, if the BBFC thinks that appropriate, because that will also help to cut out some of the gratuitous violence. I return to the basic point: the first onus is on film producers to be sensible.

Illegal Immigration

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methods he uses to assess the extent of illegal immigration into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: There are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom. By its very nature, illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative.

Sir Michael Neubert: Did my hon. Friend see official figures this week that forecast that legal immigrants to


London from Europe and elsewhere will number more than 1 million over the next 20 years? Can he assure me and my constituents that controls are adequate to stop illegal immigrants adding to that number?

Mr. Baker: The figures to which my hon. Friend refers are projections and are not intended to be forecasts; they reflect inward migration assumptions that were published two years ago. Indeed, a large element in the figures is migration from other European Union nations. I can assure my hon. Friend that firm action is taken against those who are found to be here unlawfully. Some 7,200 illegal entrants were detected in 1994 and 4,750 overstayers, or persons working in breach of conditions, were issued with a notice of intention to deport. We take firm action against any illegal immigrants we find.

Mr. Madden: Can the Minister confirm that, unless elaborate, inconvenient and expensive arrangements are made to count into the United Kingdom every person who enters, and count out every person who leaves, estimates of illegal immigration can be nothing more than a wild guesstimate?

Mr. Baker: Estimates of illegal immigration that I have seen have been, as the hon. Gentleman said, wild guesstimates, and they do nothing to enable a proper atmosphere in which action can be taken and people in this country reassured. I must reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have a wide and busy programme of action to deal with illegal immigration, about which many people in this country are concerned.

Mr. Hawkins: While I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, does he agree that many people in my constituency and in constituencies across the country are concerned about illegal immigration and need to be reassured, and that the Labour party is hopelessly split on this issue, as on many others, because while the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said that he is in favour of keeping frontier controls, the Labour leader in the European Parliament, Pauline Green, the leader of the whole European socialist group, has said that she is in favour of dismantling all frontier controls, here and right across Europe?

Mr. Baker: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. People need reassurance. Notwithstanding that, they receive no reassurance when they listen to the Labour party. The action that we take is part of a full programme. We act through operations and exercises against illegal immigration. We follow up cases on a targeted basis. We liaise with the police and we take action against facilitators, who are perhaps at the worst end of the illegal immigration business.

Market Testing

Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to announce a pause in market testing for prison services.

Mr. Howard: The prison service is committed to the policy for increased private sector management of prisons which I announced in September 1993. Four prisons are already under private sector management, contracts for two new prisons will be awarded shortly, two market tests of prisons have been completed and a further market test

is planned for this year. In addition, contracts are now in place for private management of the court escort and custody service in half England and Wales.

Ms Church: Now that the Home Secretary has realised that the proper priority for the prison service is to improve security and control drug-taking in our prisons, why does not he realise that the best steps to be taken would be to abandon the policy of market testing and concentrate on those priorities?

Mr. Howard: The facts do not support the hon. Lady's assertions. For example, the first two contracts on escorts have saved the taxpayer more than £10 million a year, the courts now receive a better service and escapes have been reduced by more than 40 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Dowd: Will the Prime Minister join me, and I am sure the whole House, in sending our deepest condolences to the family of Mr. Malcolm Murray, who died in Leeds general infirmary yesterday? Does he share the anger that we feel at the fact that he was in Leeds general infirmary because he had to be flown by helicopter some 200 miles after a fruitless search for an intensive care bed in London? Does not that demonstrate conclusively that the bed closure programme that the Government are pursuing in London has gone too far? Is he aware that he can do something immediately by instructing his Secretary of State for Health to accept the recommendation of the South-East London health authority that Guy's hospital must not close?

The Prime Minister: This is certainly a tragic incident and I share the view that the hon. Gentleman expressed about that. I believe that the whole House will join me in extending my deepest sympathy to Mr. Murray's family upon his death. This is a serious case and the South Thames region has set up an urgent investigation, the outcome of which we must await. The full facts of the case are not yet in front of me, but I understand that Mr. Murray required a highly specialised form of treatment with which Leeds was particularly able to help—[Interruption]—a highly specialised form of treatment, and that was the medical decision that was taken. Beyond that, we will have to wait for the result of the inquiry.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that–—[Interruption.]—

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that inflation is


virtually non-existent and that unemployment stands at 12.5 per cent.? That has been necessary in order to confirm France's status as an economic vassal state of Germany. Is it not therefore a cause for congratulation for our Government that we were not obliged to take the same course of action this week? Should we not make more of the fact that both the Opposition parties are committed to such a ruinous policy?

The Prime Minister: There is, indeed, a great deal of exchange rate turbulence, which has reflected itself in the interest rate increase in France, to which my hon. Friend refers. As I have told the House before, there has been a pretty massive flight into deutchmarks as a result of an unsettled international situation. That is the principal underlying reason that has led to such difficulties for the franc. As I told the House some time ago, I see no prospect of the United Kingdom returning to the exchange rate mechanism for some time. I have made that point perfectly clear. The fundamentals of the British economy are such that I am delighted that we are not suffering precisely the difficulty that France has.

Mr. Blair: Is it true that, when Ministers proceeded with the sale of electricity shares on Monday, they already knew that the electricity regulator was actively considering announcing a cut in prices?

The Prime Minister: There have been some distorted versions of what has happened, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out precisely what the circumstances are.
The fact is that Professor Littlechild did not decide to undertake his review until Monday afternoon, after trading had begun in shares in PowerGen and National Power. But, although the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry were aware that he was considering the possibility, he had not notified them even on Monday morning—when stock exchange trading began—that he had made any decision to go ahead.
I should also tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury took independent financial and legal advice at the end of last week on whether, in the light of the possible uncertainty, the share sale prospectus was still accurate. The legal and financial advice that it received was that, even if the issue of price controls for the regional electricity companies was reopened, that was not material to the share sale of the generating companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] That is the legal advice that hon. Members say is rubbish. As for the generating companies, they are subject to a wholly different basis of regulation. It was in the light of that legal and financial advice that the Treasury decided to proceed.

Mr. Blair: That may have been the legal advice, but may I ask the Prime Minister about the duty of his Government? Will he confirm that the Government knew that the regulator was actively considering making such an announcement? That is the first point. Secondly, if they did know, does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose the information to prospective investors?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say just now, that was precisely the point of seeking the legal advice: to determine whether the prospectus was right. The right hon. Gentleman himself is a distinguished lawyer—

(Interruption.] I suspect that, if the Government had sought legal advice on an issue of this sort and then not taken the legal advice that they had been given, the right hon. Gentleman would have been at the Dispatch Box asking why we had not taken the legal advice that we had legitimately sought and received.

Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his compliment about my being a lawyer, but surely the point—(Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I expect better behaviour from Ministers.

Mr. Blair: I cannot say that we do, Madam Speaker.
The question relates not to the legal advice, but to the responsibility of the Government. Does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose that information? Never mind whether the Government were legally entitled to it; does he not think that it would have been better to disclose it? Or is the short truth that a privatisation programme already damaged by boardroom excess and customer complaints is now tarnished by at best incompetence and at worst double dealing by Government?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has now asked the same question three times. I answered his third question with my first answer, and I made the position clear in my second answer. Other than to get in his ritual soundbite, I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman has asked his question a third time.
The fact is, as I have said, that the Government were aware that the regulator was considering the possibility at some stage in the future. He had not notified the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, even on Monday morning, of whether he had determined to proceed, and whether he had determined what his statement would be.
That is the purpose of ensuring that the prospectus is right; that is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took legal advice. On the basis that it was right to proceed—that the prospectus was accurate—my right hon. and learned Friend proceeded. If he had not, the right hon. Gentleman would have been standing there asking why the sale did not proceed and why the Government did not take the legal advice that they had sought in order to do so.

Mr. Michael Spicer: On the question of exchange rate turbulence, does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent rise in the deutschmark against the pound is good for British exporters to Germany and bad for German exporters to Britain? Would it not be a bad thing if we were ever again to shadow the deutschmark?

The Prime Minister: We are not shadowing the deutschmark and I do not anticipate that we will. At the moment the performance of British exports makes it clear that both British industry and the British currency are performing well.

Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not cut the legal waffle? The real question is not what is legally possible: it is what is right. Is the Prime Minister proud that his Government had to hoodwink the public to get them to buy their electricity shares?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not a distinguished lawyer. If he lets fly like that I hope that he is never sitting down where he has to take a cool, calm decision of what is in the national interest. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to read the three answers that I gave to the right hon. Member for Sedgefied (Mr. Blair). Perhaps upon several readings of them he will know the answer to his question.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolving power to schools and hospitals has led to improved educational standards and more patients being treated? Would the imposition of an unnecessary layer of regional government harm that success?

The Prime Minister: I believe that it most certainly would. There are forms of devolution that I favour, most notably devolution down to the family and to the local community so that they can make their own decisions. We are certainly not committed to regional assemblies. There seems to be some confusion among the Opposition as to whether they are. On Sunday the right hon. Member for Sedgefield ( Mr. Blair) said:
We are not committed to regional assemblies.
The deputy leader of the Labour party said:
No, I don't say that is the position.
There seems to be some confusion about that on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Burden: When the number of full-time employees in the civil service has fallen by 29,000 in the past five years and the number on temporary contracts has grown by 82 per cent. in the same period, why are managers in the Employment Service being encouraged to sack temporary workers rather than let them have employment rights? Does the Prime Minister not realise that constant job insecurity is one of the biggest factors preventing any kind of feel good factor?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman took a wider view rather than being concerned with the point that he mentions, he would also have mentioned the dramatic fall in unemployment in every region of the United Kingdom. Self-evidently, work loads in Departments fluctuate, and by limiting periods of casual employment Departments are obliged to fill permanent vacancies with permanent staff, as they should. That is what is happening in the Department of Employment.

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider those seven schools in west Norfolk that have become grant-maintained? If he visits those schools he will find high morale and excellent motivation and commitment. Is it any wonder that more and more Members on the Labour Front Bench want to send their children to grant-maintained schools, and is it any wonder that the public find that grossly hypocritical?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that there are seven grant-maintained schools in my hon. Friend's constituency. I hope that there will be more in every constituency in the future. Education is an important ladder that helps people to raise themselves to a higher standard of living. Grant-maintained schools offer a wide choice, which I commend to everyone and congratulate everybody on taking. I trust that everybody will ensure that it is open to all who wish to have it.

Mr. Enright: In spite of the headlong rush into vegetarianism, does the Prime Minister agree with Bob Reid, the former chairman of British Rail, that he would rather put money into a butcher's shop than into rail privatisation?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have heard what else Sir Bob said. He also said:
I do believe that privatisation is right.
The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lidington: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts to secure peace in Northern Ireland, does he agree that, until terrorism has been eradicated, it is right that we should continue to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to secure the protection of our fellow citizens in every part of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I do agree with that. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday, we shall retain the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 as long as the powers are needed for the protection of the public in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. I should add that we have accepted independent advice that all of the powers in the Act continue to be necessary and justified. My right hon. and learned Friend made that clear to the House yesterday.

Medium Support Helicopter

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): rose—(Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Will the Secretary of State wait until hon. Members have left? I hope that they will do so quickly and quietly. This is an important statement for which the House has been waiting for some time.

Mr. Rifkind: With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about support helicopters.
Following a detailed assessment, the Government have concluded that a high priority should be placed on enhancing the tactical mobility and flexibility of our forces in the changed strategic environment. The Army has an operational need for additional support helicopters to enable it to meet its current and its prospective tasks.
Our evaluation of the operational requirement has concluded that only the Westland utility EH101 and Boeing Chinook are capable of meeting our particular needs for a medium support helicopter. As a result, in December 1993 I authorised the start of parallel negotiations with the two manufacturers. Our evaluation of the respective offers from the two companies is now complete.
We have concluded that, bearing in mind the increasing importance of retaining flexible forces, there would be advantage in operating a mixed fleet of utility EH101 and Chinook support helicopters. Following the parallel negotiations, we have therefore decided to procure 22 utility EH101 support helicopters and a further eight Chinook HC mark II aircraft. The costs of introducing an additional helicopter type into service and creating a mixed fleet are inevitably higher than those of an all-Chinook fleet, and this means that a direction is required to the accounting officer that the Government have taken into account wider implications in reaching their decision. The accounting officer has advised that, if the Government conclude that the overall benefits outweigh the costs, it is possible to choose the mixed fleet with propriety. That is the Government's conclusion.
The EH101 is a modern design and offers advantages of operational flexibility. Those include commonality with the Royal Navy's Merlin helicopter, which will be of particular significance in land and sea-based operations. The EH101 will also provide a middle lift option between the Chinook and the Lynx light support helicopter, which will remove the need to replace Wessex with a new helicopter. The additional Chinooks are required because some large loads can be carried only by that aircraft, which is a reliable and capacious helicopter, proven in Royal Air Foice service. In addition, we are procuring a further six replacement Chinooks to maintain the current fleet, taking into account expected attrition losses. Those orders are subject to satisfactory completion of contracts.
In reaching this decision, the Government have also taken full account of the wider implications for the aircraft industry. They have invested some £1.5 billion in the development of the EH101 family, which is central to Westland's comprehensive design and manufacturing capability. The EH101 has excellent export potential in both its military and its civil variants, from which the

Government will derive substantial financial benefit through the levy on sales. Our decision demonstrates the confidence that we have in that new British aircraft.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in welcoming this decision, which will increase our existing medium support helicopter capacity by 70 per cent. At the same time, it will help to secure the future of the United Kingdom helicopter design and manufacturing capability and so strengthen the United Kingdom's aerospace industry, which provides important opportunities for United Kingdom suppliers as well as technology skills, both within and outside the aerospace industry. This decision will bring a substantial increase in capability for our armed forces as well as industrial and employment benefits. I commend it to the House.

Dr. David Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House because, as you so wisely reminded us, Madam Speaker, we have waited a long time for this statement—eight years to he precise.
We welcome the announcement because the Labour party has always championed the Westland EH101. We think that today's news is important for not only the armed forces but the United Kingdom defence industry. It is important because it means that we have increased our helicopter capability for lift and—this is vital—we have maintained a helicopter building capability here in the United Kingdom. I know that the House will welcome that.
We welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to the idea that competition is not the sole criterion for purchasing equipment such as this. We commend him for the way in which he has decided to take into account the future of the United Kingdom defence industry. That is wise and the Opposition support him in that.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that this helicopter order is the one that was originally announced to the House on 9 April 1987—eight years ago? Can he explain why we have had to wait eight years for the announcement? Can he also explain why we have lost jobs and export orders because of the Government's indecision about placing the order and their failure to gain the endorsement of the helicopter by our armed forces?
Will the Secretary of State tell us what offset arrangements he has with Boeing? We understand that he has placed an order for eight new helicopters and six further replacements. Does that mean that we get 100 per cent. offset costs, or is it a higher level because there is a larger order? If there are offset arrangements, will he give the House the categorical assurance that those arrangements are not merely in the form of what I might call metal-bashing, but also involve United Kingdom high-tech industry? We think that this is a good announcement. It has been a long time in coming, but we are glad that it has finally come.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome, but I found some of his later remarks confusing and confused to say the least. He suggested that I am moving away from the principle of competition. He seems to be unaware that in evidence to the Select Committee about a year ago I said that we had a preference for a mixed fleet and that, assuming that the mixed fleet would meet our requirements, that was what we would wish to go for. That is the basis of the approach.


Part of the reason for the time that has elapsed was to ensure that we could extract from both companies the best price available.
On offset, yes, there will be proper offset arrangements on the Boeing aircraft. The hon. Gentleman asked why we have had to wait since 1987. For an Opposition defence spokesman to be unaware of what has changed since 1987 shows a lamentable grasp of the international situation. It is not only the Labour party that has changed since 1987. We have seen the end of the cold war, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the Warsaw pact. [Interruption.] Yes, perhaps they are of the same order as the changes in the Labour party and with the same consequences.
The House would have expected us to have a full strategic consideration of the continuing need for support helicopters and that is what we have done. I believe that it is right and proper to go forward with a major order of this sort so as to maximise the flexibility and deployability of our armed forces to meet the new strategic requirements.

Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as I announced the purchase of the 44 Merlin EH101 helicopters, I especially welcome this announcement because it is a vote of confidence in the further development of the EH101? Will he ensure that the Ministry of Defence gives every encouragement not least to our Italian partners in this venture to take part in the programme and start the export development of this valuable new piece of equipment which, I believe, has considerable potential around the world?

Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his contribution to the development of the programme. He is right to emphasise the fact that it is a joint British-Italian programme. The Italian Government expect to purchase the aircraft, which will be welcome for Westland and in terms of the export potential of this very impressive aircraft

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am tempted to say, "At last," but, as I do not wish to sound too curmudgeonly, I shall say that this order, although late and less than was originally promised, is nevertheless very welcome. It is especially welcome for the reasons outlined by the Secretary of State. It is a vote of confidence not only in the quality of the aircraft but in the quality of the work force and management that produced it.
Is the Secretary of State aware that it will open possibilities for sales and strengthen Westland's position? There is an especially interesting competition going on for the Westland Merlin in terms of the US navy's helicopter requirement, and I should be grateful if he will confirm that the Government will give their full support as they have in the past. Will he confirm that the decision also opens up the possibility of much wider use of the EH101 throughout our armed forces and in NATO where, if properly supported, it has the possibility of becoming a NATO standard?

Mr. Rifkind: There are important economic and employment implications associated with the decision. For example, including the EH101 sales that are likely to take place overseas, it will provide on average more than 1,100 jobs a year for the next 30 years. In addition to Westland in Yeovil, companies such as Rolls-Royce at Bristol, Smiths Industries in Cheltenham, GEC Marconi

in Basildon, Martin Baker in Uxbridge, Racal Electronics in Slough, Lucas in Birmingham and a number of other important companies in various parts of the country will benefit from the work involved in this project.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is welcome news not only for my constituents but for many people in the west country? Will he accept on behalf of all of us—Conservative and Labour Members—who fought so hard to get this order, congratulations on the way in which his present ministerial team and the previous one fought our corner and fought not only the internal battle within the MOD, about which we should perhaps not say too much, but a little battle, or skirmish, with the Treasury?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. The important point to emphasise is that the decision is extremely welcome from the point of view of the armed forces as well as from the point of view of industry. Not only are we announcing a 70 per cent. increase in the lift capability of our armed forces, but we shall be doubling the number of support helicopters available on the front line. That is why the armed forces have today signalled their very warm welcome for the decision.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State asked what had happened since 1987. Does he agree that since then the Wessex, which entered squadron service in 1964, has been subject to heavy use and that it is a rather expensive helicopter to run? I welcome the statement, but does he accept that there will still be some residual doubt about the heavy lift capacity that may be relevant in the fulfilment of future international commitments and in the use and deployment of the air mobile brigade?

Mr. Rifkind: Today's announcement will remove the need to replace the Wessex with a completely new helicopter because the EH101 is of a category that will enable us to meet that need.
As for the total lift capability, of course, if one had an all-Chinook fleet, because of the larger size of the Chinook and its greater lift capability, the total increase in lift capability would have been even more than the 70 per cent. to which I referred. One has to balance that against the flexibility available through the mixed fleet decision. As the EH101 is a smaller and more agile aircraft, it can use landing spots that the Chinook would find more difficult and it is more suitable for land and sea operations, especially working with the Merlin, of which it is a variant. So there are operational benefits to take into account as well.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that Westland Isle of Wight is the second largest plant in the United Kingdom? According to its managing director, Chris Gustar, this order means that the company and the Isle of Wight's economy—it is such an enormous part of our economy on the island—have really turned the corner. In view of that excellent order, will my right hon. and learned Friend see what we can do to get the helicopter into the coastguard service as well as the military?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend and confirm that this is very good news for the Isle of Wight. We shall be interested in supporting the helicopter's use in other areas, if it proves suitable, and in doing all that we can to assist Westland to increase its export potential because the


overall impact will have a continuing profound effect on employment and industry for a generation to come, and we can work with the company to help to encourage that.

Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. and learned Friend's decision will also be warmly welcomed in my constituency, where many Westland workers and senior management live. It is a timely decision, given the forthcoming IDEX exhibition, which is to take place in the middle east in the middle of March, where there will be all sorts of opportunities for us to promote the aircraft in export markets. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will give all support to the marketing of the excellent civilian version of the EH101, which is also on offer.

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there are three variants—the utility, the maritime Merlin and the civil variant—and it is important to try to maximise the export opportunities for all those forms of helicopter. The Ministry of Defence is especially interested in two of the three categories, but the order announced today will undoubtedly have benefits across the spectrum of equipment that Westland has on offer.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that congratulations are due to him on the announcement of the order? Many of us have constituents who work in the plant and without the order the British helicopter industry would have been severely in doubt. It is, therefore, immensely important. When does he expect the first batch of helicopters to be delivered to the RAF and over what period will deliveries be extended?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance that the Ministry of Defence and the Government attach to the helicopter industry continuing in the United Kingdom and to the need to sustain that support with the sort of order that we announced today. I understand that the first deliveries of the EH101 are likely to be in 1999 and that they will continue thereafter.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, in addition to the list of large companies that he said would benefit from the order, many small specialist companies, such as Fireproof Tanks of Portsmouth, which are competing in the international market, will be given greater prestige because they are associated with the decision?

Mr. Rifkind: Indeed, Portsmouth will benefit. Fireproof Tanks is one of the companies that will be participating in the production of the helicopter as a result of today's decision.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend will he aware how important the decision is, not only to Westland but to the aviation industry, including the avionics industry, which is a large employer in my constituency. He will shortly have to make a decision about the attack helicopter for the Army. Without pre-empting his decision in any way, will he assure the House that he will be just as mindful of the need to support and promote the British high-technology aviation industry, including avionics?

Mr. Rifkind: The attack helicopter is a separate issue and will be considered on its merits. A number of serious bids have been put forward to the Ministry of Defence and are being evaluated. I hope that we will reach a conclusion before the House rises for the summer recess, but it is a complex and difficult matter. We will certainly share our decision with the House as soon as we have been able to reach it.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this announcement will safeguard jobs in my constituency and elsewhere throughout Somerset, and will also be a major fillip to the defence and manufacturing industries in the south-west. Can he confirm to the House that, in addition to the UK industrial and export factors that rightly weighed with him, there is a strong defence factor in choosing the EH101 in such numbers to take account of the changed nature of potential warfare?

Mr. Rifkind: My main responsibility has to be to consider, in the broadest sense, the defence requirements of the United Kingdom. That required me to take into account, not only the need to sustain a military helicopter manufacturing capability, but the benefits that flow from the mixed fleet because of the versatility that that provides for our armed forces.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If it has taken eight years for the Minister to make that statement, when is the date of the next general election?

Mr. Rifkind: It will be less than eight years, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait.

Mr. Alan Howarth: May I put a question to my right hon. and learned Friend in his capacity as a member of a Cabinet that proceeds on the principle of collective responsibility? I ask him, even now, to reconsider the balance of the country's interests as between investment in helicopters and investment in literacy. Is he really content that more than £1 billion should be spent on a helicopter order while £30 million is denied for central Government support for the generalisation of the reading recovery programme? In Warwickshire, we have a clear and urgent preference to be allowed to have the resources to pay for the educational basics.

Mr. Rifkind: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety to ensure that that aspect of his interest is properly safeguarded. I hope that he will also understand that it is not only desirable in general policy terms to ensure that our armed forces are equipped with the most suitable equipment to carry out their tasks, but that it could mean the difference between life and death for those whom we send to carry out those tasks on our behalf.

Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the decision to buy a mixed fleet of helicopters will be very much welcomed by many of us who have for long felt that that was the best way to meet the future needs of our armed forces' vertical lift capability. Will he ensure that those helicopters are delivered to the Royal Air Force on time and on cost, and that any suggested modifications by the Ministry of Defence are considered closely, to ensure that they are


necessary, and that the aircraft reaches RAF service on time, instead of reaching it delayed and at an increased cost?

Mr. Rifkind: It goes without saying that the armed forces have an important and urgent requirement for those aircraft. We expect both the Westland EH1O1s and the Boeing Chinooks to be delivered on the basis of contractual arrangements that we shall enter into, and we intend to ensure that both companies meet that requirement in the months and years to come.

Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome the commitment made in ordering the helicopters, but will my right hon. and learned Friend expand on his plans for helping export sales? Which countries does he expect to take the initial interest, and how exactly does he intend to go about it?

Mr. Rifkind: We have a Defence Export Sales Organisation, which works closely with industry. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be wise for me to speculate on individual countries at this stage. I can say that a number of NATO and non-NATO countries have expressed serious interest in the EH101, and we and the company will continue to liaise with them to discover whether that interest can be translated into firm orders.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm certain quality aspects of the EH101? I heard this morning, on radio, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) suggesting that the only reason why the Canadians did not buy that helicopter was that we would not give confidence by making an order ourselves. In fact, Westland won the order completely on its own merits, and the Liberal Government coming into power in Canada cancelled the order. Will he further confirm that—[Interruption.] Indeed, the right hon.

Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) congratulated them on doing it within a week of their coming to office.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Defence Research Agency has done studies about the vibration and the fatigue that Chinook pilots experience because of the old technology, and that the EH101, which suppresses that vibration, overcomes the problem so that pilots can fly longer?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right on both accounts. The Chinook is older—some 30 years old—whereas the EH101 is a state-of-the-art aircraft and therefore much more impressive. My hon. Friend's earlier point is correct. Once again, he shows the superiority of his knowledge compared with that of the Opposition spokesman. The previous Canadian Government had ordered the EH101, but the Canadian Liberal party chose to campaign on a pledge that it would cancel the order if it won the election. It did win the election and, notwithstanding the interest of the Canadian armed forces, the order was cancelled. I see that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is desperate to comment on that.

Sir David Steel: I well understand the concern of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about the Canadian effect on Conservative politics, but I shall not comment on that.
On the more serious helicopter issue, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Canadian Government are actively considering ordering EHIO1s for their search and rescue service?

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, if they are prepared to reconsider the decision, we shall be delighted. They are currently subject to certain legal claims from Westland because of the cancellation of the contract. If that leads to reconsideration, we shall all be delighted.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week. The business will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 MARCH—Second reading of the Gas Bill.
TUESDAY 14 MARCH—Second reading of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
Motion on the Miners' Welfare Act 1952 (Transfer of Functions of Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation) order.
WEDNESDAY 15 MARCH—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Estimates Day (second allotted day): debate on support for business, consumer and investor protection, energy programmes and administration, in so far as it relates to the Department of Trade and Industry's support for the development of broadband communications; followed by a debate on administration, in so far as it relates to the Department of the Environment's retail planning policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At Ten o'clock, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding excess votes, the spring supplementary estimates and defence votes A.
THURSDAY 16 MARCH—Until about Seven o'clock, proceedings on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
Debate on the Commonwealth, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 17 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of the Child Support Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 15 March to consider European Community document Nos. 9508/93 and 8251/94 relating to hallmarking.
The other information that I can give the House, which is not as complete as I would like but which I hope will he helpful, is that, on Thursday 23 March, I anticipate Government business of an ordinary kind until about 7 o'clock, followed by a debate on a motion for the Adjournment. [Wednesday 15 March
Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day)—Relevant reports: Class IV, Vote 1, in so far as it relates to support for the development of broadband communications: Third Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1993-94, (HC 285-1), Optical Fibre Networks; DTI, Creating the Superhighways of the Future: Developing Broadband Communications in the UK, November 1994, CM 2734.
Class VII Vote 7, in so far as it relates to retail planning policy: Fourth Report from the Environment Committee, Session 1993-94 (HC 359-1), Shopping Centres and their Future.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Documents (a) 9508/93, (b) 8251/94, Hallmarking; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports (a) HC 48-xxiv (1993-94) and HC 48-xxiv (1993-94), (b) HC 48-xxvii (1993–94).]

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information.
Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that it is strange to have scheduled for Monday 20 March the Second Reading of the Child Support Bill, which I gather comes into operation later next year, whereas important regulations that involve changes to the workings of the Child Support Agency, which are to come into operation from April—next month—have not yet been laid before the House? As those regulations are extremely important and complex, will he ensure that hon. Members have sufficient time to consider them? Will he also assure us that, because of the Bill's complexity, sufficient parliamentary time will be allowed for debate at all stages—including, if necessary, Report on the Floor of the House?
Two private Members' Bills received their Second Reading last Friday, with strong support from both sides of the House, as was the case with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. As those measures have received widespread support both inside and outside the House and across the political spectrum, the Government should be willing to facilitate further discussion of the Bills by ensuring that they go to Committee. Parliament can then make a decision about the issues involved, rather than being frustrated by procedural devices.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a ministerial statement early next week to report on the poverty summit in Copenhagen, not least because so little has been said or written by Ministers about the Government's attitude to that potentially important summit?
Will the Leader of the House also ensure that Ministers have the opportunity to clarify another issue which, following Prime Minister's Question Time today, I think requires further clarification—the Government's role in the electricity privatisation and regulation fiasco?
As the Prime Minister acknowledged today that Ministers were aware that the electricity regulator was considering a review of the price mechanism, and that they even took legal advice before the flotation of National Power, and as it is absolutely clear that consumers have been overcharged and that shareholders—both individuals and pension funds—have been ripped off, surely the time has come for Ministers to reveal to the House the full extent of their involvement.
Ministers should not hide behind legal advice and say that they were not compelled to disclose information—so much for open government from that group of Ministers. We need an urgent debate, so that Ministers can face their responsibilities to consumers, shareholders and to the House.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might take the points made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) in reverse order. The hon. Lady will understand that there was a substantial exchange about the electricity issues that she has touched upon during Prime Minister's Question Time not long ago. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the position very clearly, and I am not able to add to that.
As to the hon. Lady's penultimate question about the conference in Copenhagen, she will know that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker is acting for Britain at that social summit. I think that she is very well qualified to do so, and that she will make Britain's position completely clear.


The second of the hon. Lady's questions related to private Members' Bills—she put her questions in what I would describe as a more sophisticated form than usual. However, I have no plans for providing Government time to discuss private Members' Bills or of departing from the usual practices in relation to private Members' Bills.
Lastly, on the Child Support Bill and associated matters, I entirely take the hon. Lady's point about the regulations. We will try to ensure that they are available and are debated in good time, because, as she said, they are due to come into effect sooner than the Bill. Of course, a Bill takes a good deal longer to pass than a set of regulations. The hon. Lady is already making demands for time later in the Session, which constitutes a good reason for getting on with the legislation.

Mr. David Howell: I am very glad that there will be a debate next week about the Commonwealth, and that excellent organisation the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Will my right hon. Friend try to provide some time for a debate on Hong Kong, the China economic region generally and the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on that subject, which was released some time ago? It is a long time since we debated Hong Kong in the House.

Mr. Newton: As the debate on the Commonwealth responds to various representations made to me from both sides of the House during the past few weeks, I think that I have demonstrated my willingness to listen to representations of the kind that my hon. Friend has made. I shall not make any promises at this stage, but I will certainly look carefully at what he has said.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Although I have no doubt that Baroness Chalker is "acting for Britain", as the Minister put it, will he go much further and confirm that a Minister will have the chance to come to this place to account for Britain's actions—particularly for what is perceived as Britain's lamentable performance in its responsibilities to the rest of the world—following the social summit in Copenhagen? Will the Minister confirm that there will be a statement, or at least that there is the prospect of one?
Given that the matter that has concerned hon. Members urgently today and was the subject of the first question to the Prime Minister was the failure of the emergency services to come to the rescue of the man injured in Kent last night, who died in Leeds general infirmary, can we examine how the accident and emergency services—all of them—work and the way in which we inquire into them?
The Marchioness inquest is next week and there are many who are unhappy that, in the last few hours, people are having to scrabble around for money to pay for the legal representation of the bereaved of the 51 who died in an accident on the Thames six years ago.

Mr. Newton: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's last point to the attention of my right hon. Friends. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the tragic incident involving the man from Kent. As he made clear, an investigation is under way, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage.
Apart from the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has reminded me, there will be questions on overseas development matters on Monday week, which

will provide an opportunity for adverting to these matters, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about Britain's record. Indeed, Britain's bilateral aid programme is widely regarded as one of the most effective in the world. This year's budget is the sixth largest across the globe, and it is absolutely unquestionable that we lead the way on debt reform.

Mr. Piers Merchant: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on his reply to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on Hong Kong? If my memory serves me aright, it is a long time since the House had the opportunity to have a full debate on Hong Kong. In view of the vast political developments there and the impending handover to China, I hope that my right hon. Friend would considerably favour an early debate on the topic.

Mr. Newton: I repeat what I took as the friendly and constructive answer I gave my right hon. Friend, and ask my hon. Friend to take it as embracing my attitude to his request also.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): The Leader of the House was present a short while ago the Prime Minister answered three questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I advert particularly to the third question and answer. Would the Leader of the House, bearing in mind the precedent set over the Al-Fayed allegations about payments to Members, when the House was reassured by the Prime Minister that Sir Robin Butler had carried out an—(Interruption.] Madam Speaker, will you tell the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to shut up or put up?

Madam Speaker: Order. I have cautioned hon. Members on both sides of the House before on barracking from sedentary positions. There is far too much of it in the House, and far too many times it comes from certain hon. Members. I also caution hon. Members that we are in the middle of business questions, and that questions put to the Leader of the House should be directly related to next week's business. I hope that such a question will now be put.

Mr. Bermingham: It is coming indeed, Madam Speaker.
As I was saying to the Leader of the House, we were reassured by the fact that Sir Robin Butler had carried out an investigation. Later inquiries before a Select Committee revealed that no investigation had been carried out. Today, we are assured that advice was taken from counsel with regard to the electricity sell-off.

Madam Speaker: Order. I really must have a business question now. I have listened long enough to a preamble which is really an argument. [Interruption.] I need no help whatsoever from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I now insist that I have a direct question from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I have heard enough of a preamble.

Mr. Bermingham: All I want is for the Leader of the House to put in the Library of the House a copy of the questions asked of counsel, so that we can then debate whether they were the relevant questions that should have been asked of counsel.

Mr. Newton: I have already made it clear in responding to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend said, which I thought was very clear.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will my right hon. Friend find some time soon for a debate on education, so that we can explore the refusal of the East Sussex Liberals to fund a teachers' pay award in full, when there is plenty of money in the budget to cover it, while at the same time they are frightening governors, teachers and parents into signing a petition demanding more taxpayers' money?

Mr. Newton: I will investigate whether it is possible to find time to debate important issues such as that which my hon. Friend raised, so that they may be fully explored.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: Perhaps I may turn that into a cross-party call for an education debate, in the light of Government policy initiatives that emerged recently. Before Christmas, there was a much trumpeted and much welcomed, if belated, Government commitment to new money for nursery education. Last week, the Secretary of State for Education advised local authorities to fund the gap in their budgets by taking money out of pre-school education.
This week, a cessation of funding for the reading recovery scheme was announced, just at the time that the scheme is demonstrating its success in improving literary standards in schools. It is important—

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Whips ought to arrange seminars on how to put business questions, which are not meant to provide an opportunity for hon. Members to make statements first on their point of view. Their purpose is to ask why the business of the House cannot be changed to allow debate on a certain issue. Hon. Members are taking far too long to explain themselves.

Mr. O'Hara: I was simply asking whether the Leader of the House agrees that such important policy initiatives merit the attention of the House.

Mr. Newton: A variety of important matters merit the attention of the House. I set down a number of them for debate next week, and at present I am not able to satisfy the request of the hon. Gentleman and of my hon. Friend for a debate on a different subject.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement on early-day motion 763.
[That this House notes the honourable Member for Leicester West, as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee, is interviewing leading industrialists and businessmen on their remuneration packages whilst at the same time offering these people his services on how to improve their public speaking and presentational skills; further notes that other services offered by the honourable Member for Leicester West include advice on making people redundant and serving on the Remuneration Committee of Ladbroke plc which awarded the Chairman of that company a salary of £583,000 per annum—£108,000 per annum more than the Chairman of British Gas plc—and in addition awarded five directors of the company 1.3 million share options worth £2.3 million; believes that these activities represent a conflict of

interest with his current position as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee; and calls on him to resign immediately.]
During the passage of trade union legislation, the Department of Employment received a letter from Ladrokes calling for the abolition of wages councils. Is the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Janner), who serves as a board director, opposed to abolition?

Mr. Newton: I saw a number of references in the press during the week to the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman who is Chairman of the Employment Select Committee. People will form their own views on that matter, which ultimately must be one for the hon. Gentleman's judgment of what is proper under the rules of the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we debate next week the document "Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information"? I presume that the Leader of the House has read that document, so can he say whether all parliamentary answers given by Ministers meet the criteria in that code of practice?

Mr. Newton: They do, so far as I am aware. If the hon. Gentleman has reason to believe that they do not, he had better let me know and I will take the matter up in the appropriate quarters.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on local government spending? An issue of great importance to my Sutton constituents, who suffer under the yoke of a Liberal-controlled local authority, is that that authority plans to spend £150,000 on a new bus route, which is completely unpopular with local residents and will wreck their peace and quiet. They do not want that bus route, but want the money spent on social services and helping the elderly.

Mr. Newton: That sounds like a good example of the many local authorities which say that they do not have money to spend for purposes that the public want, but which spend money for purposes that the public do not want.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have a statement on the privatisation of utilities? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when the Tory Government privatised rain, it resulted in water board chiefs lining their pockets? We now know that an 83-year-old disabled ex-miner is being asked by a water board to pay £11.75 to have a tap washer fitted.

Mr. Newton: All those issues have been extensively ventilated over a long period, and no doubt some will be further ventilated in the first two days of next week, when the House debates the two Bills that I mentioned. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his point then.

Mr. Gary Streeter: May we debate next week the serious issues arising from early-day motion 763, so that the House may decide whether to refer that matter to the Nolan committee for an assessment of the position of a Select Committee Chairman, when such a glaring conflict of interest has arisen?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has raised an entirely legitimate point. I do not think that I can add to what I said about the rules of the House and the necessity both for the Chairman and for any Committee concerned to make a judgment about the application of those rules.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Having heard what both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister have said about the tragic death of Malcolm Murray, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position. Next week, there will be written answers that will provide sufficient information for the House to take a view. In the light of the statement made today by the new Minister with responsibilities for the citizens charter—
I find it astonishing that there was nowhere else in London where he could have been taken to. This just goes to show the need for a proper range of facilities within a reasonable distance"—
will the Leader of the House find time to arrange a debate, so that the Secretary of State for Health can answer questions about an appalling tragedy in London?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and later I myself have said about the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is due to answer questions on Tuesday next.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to enable us to discuss the prison regime? I shall then have an opportunity to give my full support to the military-style boot camps that are so popular in the United States. Although we have become extremely tough on criminals, the debate for which I ask would reinforce to my constituents that we shall become tougher still on criminals. With the drilling, marching and forced running in all weathers that takes place with criminals in boot camps in the United States, reoffending has been cut from 60 per cent. to 13 per cent. We should have such a regime in this country as soon as possible.

Mr. Newton: I shall bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I cannot promise an opportunity for an early debate on prison matters. As I have said on several occasions, they may fall to be considered when we have the results of some of the inquiries that are taking place.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the Leader of the House provide time for an early debate on a Government announcement today that will have a serious impact on passenger transport in South Yorkshire? The Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs has reversed—through a press release and not in a statement in the House—the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that would prevent the Mainline bus company in South Yorkshire from operating in the way it wants.
The decision flies in the face of what is called for by the local chamber of commerce, local organisations and Members in the area. It will mean more bus congestion and more pollution. Above all, it may threaten an employee share ownership company. Everyone in South Yorkshire believes that the decision has been sneaked out through a press release to stab in the front a successful and thriving company that is owned by its employees.

Mr. Newton: Whatever may have happened, I am certain that the purpose was not that ascribed to it by the

hon. Gentleman. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend advise me whether we should be having a debate on, or a Select Committee investigation into, the number of Labour Members who are benefiting from share option schemes, the ways in which those Members are benefiting, and whether the benefiting goes from the very bottom to the very top of the Labour party?

Mr. Newton: I do not know whether any of that is thought to he happening in Birmingham. My hon. Friend may have noticed that there is to be a debate on local government in Birmingham on Wednesday.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the current state of political parties in Britain? When I arrived home in my constituency on Friday last, I found the following statement in the local newspaper:
Top Tory quits over sleaze.
One of my constituents, Councillor Roy Newman, was the vice-chair of the Rother Valley constituency party. He has resigned because he believes that the party has lost its way, that leadership does not exist, that it is riddled with sleaze, and that, at the same time, the poor are becoming poorer while the rich are getting richer. I would like to express my constituent's thoughts as soon as possible.

Mr. Newton: I have already made reference to the debate next Wednesday on local government in Birmingham, in which one or two somewhat different perspectives on some of these matters may emerge. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can work in any relevant remarks while remaining in order, but he might like to try.

Mr. James Clappison: May I support the call for a debate on education, which would unable us to debate assisted places, which is of great interest to hundreds of families in my constituency? In spite of cynical window dressing and talk of co-operation between the private and public sector, the Labour party proposes to abolish those assisted places, to the disadvantage of hundreds of low-income families in my constituency.

Mr. Newton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), my hon. Friend has given an excellent reason for seeking a possible debate on education. That, too, I will bear in mind.

Mr. George Foulkes: As the Leader of the House has been helpful in giving us a debate on the Commonwealth, I shall be equally helpful and suggest a debate next week on state funding of political parties.
In view of the report in today's edition of the Daily Record, which said that Tory party treasurer, Lord Hambro, returned from a fund-raising trip to Hong Kong empty-handed, the Tory party is in need of some assistance. I want to know why or how it is able to get a £14 million overdraft from the Royal Bank of Scotland, the chairman of which is Lord Younger of Prestwick—it does not have any collateral, does not own its


headquarters, and has no basis on which to get that loan—when some of my constituents cannot even get a loan of a few hundred quid from the Royal Bank?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer of help.

Mr. Christopher Gill: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the conversation that he and I had a week last Friday and the letter that I subsequently wrote to him on 27 February concerning the establishment of the meat hygiene service, which is due to become operational on 1 April this year? Does my right hon. Friend consider it appropriate for the House to debate those matters, in the light of the fact that that new service will have a budget of £50 million?
Because the House does not sit tomorrow, however, it will not be possible to give sufficient notice of the establishment of that service, and the necessary statutory instruments will not be able to be laid within the prescribed time. Does my right hon. Friend feel, as I do, that the House should be able to debate those important matters, not least because the approval of the House has already been assumed and staff have been appointed to that new service, offices have been taken on all around the country, and the whole industry is expecting it to be operational on 1 April, yet it has not technically been approved by the House?

Mr. Newton: I remember my conversation with my hon. Friend. I also have a copy of the letter and the fairly voluminous enclosures he sent me. I have not yet had the result of my inquiries on the points he raised, but I will of course come back to him as soon as possible.

Mr. James Couchman: May I join my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) in

urging a debate on early-day motion 763? The House has debated conflicts of interests of hon. Members before, but there can have been few greater conflicts of interest than that of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) in his dual role of Chairman of the Employment Select Committee and principal of an employment consultancy that gives advice on how to make people redundant.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's remarks, coming after those made earlier, do indicate some concern about those matters. I hope that that will be reflected on by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I cannot say more than I have already said.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: When the Leader of the House responded to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who made an unwarranted smear on every Labour Member of Parliament but did not name anybody, he then tied in next week's debate on Birmingham with that smear.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister responding to next week's debate to come and tell us about the Tory leader of a council in the midlands who, it has recently been disclosed, has a prison record, and a Tory mayor in the midlands who was recently in gaol for rigging the electoral system? That is what we do not want in a proper debate in the House. We want to debate public probity and finances. I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the debate is on a proper level and not the level, he indicated in his answer to the hon. Member for Dover.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may wish to take part in the debate on Wednesday, and I am sure that it will be approached with proper seriousness by my right hon. and hon. Friends. But since, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have considerable regard for him and I am frankly sorry to have upset him, I make it clear that I certainly intended, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Dover intended, no slur on him or any particular Member of Parliament.

Point of Order

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, in the course of an exchange during the debate on the prevention and suppression of terrorism reported at column 373 of the Official Report, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), having quoted me, went on to say:
Of course at that time he was not so contaminated with IRA/Sinn Fein".
My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) sought to have the hon. Gentleman withdraw that comment, and Madam Deputy Speaker said:
I think it was just about within the bounds of the way that we deal with things here".—[Official Report, 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 373.]
I find that a strange statement, for a number of reasons. In the seven years that I had the honour to represent my party on Northern Ireland matters, at no time, in any way whatever, did I have any dealings with the IRA or provisional Sinn Fein, unlike Her Majesty's Government. Such a comment about an appointed spokesman of the Labour party reflected also on two former leaders of my party and upon the fact that what I was advocating were the principles established by the Labour party conference and the national executive committee of the Labour party. They have been accused of being contaminated by IRA/Sinn Fein.
What is within the bounds of what we are allowed to say in the House? Membership of the IRA, a proscribed organisation, is subject to a period of imprisonment of up to 10 years. To address a meeting of three or more people soliciting support for or advocating the aims of the IRA

is also a punishable offence, in gaol or otherwise. That I am accused of having been involved in, and that was within the bounds accepted by Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that we can accept that.
Finally, with regard to etiquette of the House, that attack was made on me without any forewarning. I have written to the hon. Gentleman today telling him that I intended to make this statement, and, had he been in his place, I would have taken this opportunity to set out his record and responsibility for the many unhappinesses that have happened in Northern Ireland during the past 25 years.

Madam Speaker: Let me say at once, and far from the first time, that I deprecate very strongly indeed the use in debate of words which reflect on the probity of other Members. In that context, I have looked at the exchanges in the Official Report to which the hon. Member refers. I conclude that the phrase to which he objects was not so disorderly as to demand its immediate withdrawal. Nevertheless, for all that, I deprecate most strongly its use, and I repeat my general plea for good temper and moderation as characteristics of parliamentary language.
I say to all Members who participate in our debates, in terms that I think the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) may take note of, that we should remember the injunction of St. Paul to the Philippians:
Let your moderation be known to all men.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is an experienced Member of the House, and he does not need my advice on the courses of action open to him. I hope that he will feel that I have dealt with the matter, although perhaps not in a way that is entirely satisfactory to him, in a sensitive manner. I appreciate all the work that he has done over the years on Northern Ireland, as do many of us in the House.

Orders of the Day — South Africa Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
More than 30 years ago, Hendrik Verwoerd took South Africa out of the Commonwealth—exited before being pushed—because of the apartheid policies of the then South Africa; so the return of South Africa to the Commonwealth last year is a cause for celebration in all Commonwealth countries.
The intervening 34 years were dark years for South Africa—years of isolation. It was isolated from the west because it offended human and democratic values, and isolated in Africa because of its treatment of Africans and others. But South Africa was not forgotten; we knew that change must come. Change has come, and there has been a special sense of joy throughout the Commonwealth at South Africa's decision to return to the family of the Commonwealth.
The main purpose of the Bill is to modify existing legislation to place South Africa on an equal footing with other Commonwealth countries. It involves purely technical amendments to a number of Acts in order to apply them to South Africa; those amendments are set out in detail in the schedule to the Bill. The immigration and electoral implications of South Africa's return to the Commonwealth have been dealt with separately by an Order in Council made in June last year, which added South Africa to the list of Commonwealth countries included in schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981.
We are determined to do all we can to support the reconstruction of post-apartheid South Africa. Immediately after the South African elections last year, Britain committed a total of £100 million of aid to South Africa. We gave support to the reconstruction and development programme—support welcomed by South Africa.
Welcoming my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to South Africa last year, President Mandela made it clear that
we in South Africa, and I refer both to my government and the people as a whole, are particularly thankful for the commitment shown by your government to help us deal comprehensively with the legacy of apartheid".
The Prime Minister and President Mandela have agreed the areas of focus for our bilateral aid. They are in education, health, supporting good governance, including local government, encouraging the development of business and enterprise, and support for agriculture. Our assistance to South Africa is driven by the needs of the South African people.
We have offered help with the arrangements for the local elections in October this year, and with the regional integration of the South African police service. We have also offered co-operation in the fight against drug trafficking. About a third of our aid funds for South Africa are currently spent on education. Our assistance is intended to increase access for disadvantaged South

Africans to education and training opportunities. We have a clear commitment to supporting South Africa through our aid budget.
To succeed, however, South Africa needs more than aid; it needs investment and trade. The United Kingdom is the largest overseas investor in South Africa: our investments have an estimated book value of £2 billion, and a market value estimated at between £8 billion and £10 billion. In July last year, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade led a party of British business men to South Africa, and launched a trade and investment campaign called "Opportunity South Africa"—a campaign to include seminars, trade fairs and further high-level missions to promote investment in South Africa.
Funds will come from both private and public sectors. There will be support for small businesses, and exchanges between UK industry and South African postgraduate students. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced that an additional £1 billion would be available in ECGD cover.
My right hon. Friend also announced a British investment promotion scheme to encourage more small and medium-sized UK companies to invest in South Africa by providing grants towards the cost of pre-investment feasibility studies and the training of local employees. One part of the campaign, for example, is the Soweto skills initiative. Young entrepreneurs from
Soweto will come to Britain to gain management experience with British companies. Forty trainees are coming to Britain this year; six have already arrived.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on his visit to South Africa last September, took with him a further team of senior business men. During his visit, he and President Mandela signed an investment promotion and protection agreement, which is aimed at encouraging investment by British companies in South Africa.
In January, a full-scale trade promotion campaign for this year was launched, called "Britain means business". The campaign will include two high-profile commercial events in South Africa during the year. First, immediately following Her Majesty the Queen's state visit later this month, a series of seminars will be held in Cape Town: they will cover invisibles, education and health care. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be in South Africa, accompanied by a team of senior United Kingdom business people, to meet South African Ministers and business people to discuss urban regeneration, airport development, and electricity distribution to ensure a guaranteed supply of electricity to the townships.
The transition to a democratic society which is no longer based on the principle of racial discrimination requires a sound economic and financial basis. We are determined to do all we can to support investment in projects and people in South Africa.
There is a steady strengthening of relations between Britain and South Africa, and that is warmly welcomed on both sides. At the end of next week, Her Majesty the Queen, the Head of the Commonwealth, will pay a state visit to South Africa, the first such visit for nearly 50 years. That visit, which I know is eagerly awaited in South Africa, will set the seal on the revival of an old and mutually beneficial friendship between our two countries.


South Africa and its people have triumphed over division and racial injustice. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister concluded in his speech to Parliament in Cape Town:
South Africa has come out of the storm and into the calm, out of isolation into fellowship, out of division into unity".
South Africa is forging a single, non-racial, democratic nation at peace with itself. That is a formidable challenge for the years ahead. The road ahead will have dangers, but South Africans have already travelled the greater distance on their journey. They have the full support of the British Government and the British people as they work towards the goal they have set themselves of regeneration and reconstruction. South Africa's re-entry to the Commonwealth, her coming home to where she belongs, should also provide a stimulus for the Commonwealth family of one third of the world's nations.
The emergence of the new South Africa is a particular cause for rejoicing here and across the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I confess that it is quite a novel experience for me to support without hesitation the Second Reading of a Government Bill whose brief text reflects a historic event—the return of a multiracial South Africa to the family of the Commonwealth.
On 20 July last year at a service in Westminster Abbey, South Africa was welcomed back into the Commonwealth. It was fitting that on a day of such celebration the congregation was addressed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who somehow managed to endure the darkest days of apartheid without losing either his spirit or his smile.
Archbishop Tutu compared the event with the tale of the prodigal son. He said that South Africa had left the Commonwealth in 1961 and had squandered her riches during the years of apartheid, but that the international struggle and the pressure of her people had finally brought the country back to its senses. He added:
like a prodigal she has returned home".
The Commonwealth which South Africa left consisted of only 11 nations. Now its 51st member, South Africa, can look forward to a range of benefits, including wider trading opportunities, which will benefit South Africa and other countries. Nigeria, Malaysia and India are among those countries which have sent trade delegations to South Africa in the past year, and they have all had an increase in trade.
South Africa's emphasis on regional co-operation as part of its foreign policy is in marked contrast to the policies that were pursued under apartheid. It will certainly assist in bringing stability to southern Africa as a whole, thus benefiting its Commonwealth neighbours in the region. On the level of co-operation between peoples, we shall now have the pleasure of South Africa's participation in the Commonwealth games, which are traditionally known as the friendly games.
For those reasons among many others we rejoice in South Africa's return to the Commonwealth. That means, of course, that there is no longer an ambassador at South Africa house. The new high commissioner, Mendi Msimang, is the former African National Congress representative in the United Kingdom. He has spent a

considerable amount of his time over the years standing in the street outside South Africa house in the company of thousands of other people. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to welcome him to his new position.
In May, just three months before that service at Westminster Abbey, I had the privilege to witness, along with other hon. Members, the first free election in South Africa's history. That was a truly remarkable event. It was a tremendous experience to be there. We watched in awe as long queues of patient voters waited for hours, often in hot and cramped conditions, without any opportunity even to have a drink of water, and determined to express their collective relief, enthusiasm and expectation at the end of apartheid. That was a defining moment in South Africa's history.
That was my second visit to South Africa. My first, as a journalist, was in 1975. The country I then visited was different. I witnessed hatred, intolerance and immorality. I saw poverty of staggering proportions in what is still one of the richest countries in the world. I talked to black people in the homelands who watched their children die from measles because they could not afford the vaccine to treat the measles. I saw hospitals in which the surgeon had to send instruments 30 miles down the road to be sterilised. I saw women scratching a living from the soil, forcibly parted from their husbands, who had to stay in the towns. That was the reality of homeland life in South Africa.
At the same time, however, I saw courage and fortitude. I visited the Kwazulu legislative assembly, where black person after black person went to the microphone to declare that they were prepared to die for their freedom. That courage, as well as the humanity and extraordinary lack of bitterness among so many black South Africans, are the key to the changes taking place in South Africa today.
It is just five years since President Nelson Mandela was released from prison. The intervening years have brought changes so vast and so irreversible that the South Africa of old seems to belong to a different age. Despite the centuries of oppression, and against the expectations of even the most optimistic forecasts, a sense of unity and progress has emerged among enemies to transform our ideas of what is possible in politics.
We salute the forbearance and vision of Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Thabo Mbeki and their colleagues. We pay tribute to Oliver Tambo, Chris Hani, Joe Slovo and others, including the many thousands of nameless South Africans of all colours who helped to fight the evils of racism.

Mr. John Carlisle: While the hon. Lady is giving congratulations and salutations to those people, would she find room—which she may have planned to do later in her speech—to salute the courage of F.W. de Klerk, who, in some cases, has stood out almost as a pariah in his own community? He took a step that was alien to many members of his party and the white community. He should perhaps be equally congratulated by the hon. Lady as she gives her salutations.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am pleased to add my congratulations to President de Klerk. The reality that he recognised was the mark of a true statesman. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had played such an honourable part in the many debates that have taken place in the House over the


years. We remember his role during the years when so many other people were pointing out the evils of apartheid and fighting those evils in the House.

Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: Not again.

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady perhaps impugns or, indeed, questions my honour in this place. In criticising the honour of another hon. Member, was she was within parliamentary procedure on the conduct of debates? She did mention the word "honour" in relation to my attitude to debates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): As I heard the hon. Lady, she did not say that the hon. Gentleman was dishonourable. She questioned the contribution that he had made. On balance, there has probably been a fair debate, but I hope that no comment of an adverse nature to any hon. Member will be made. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber hold strong views. The Bill has clearly united all hon. Members. I hope that the debate can continue in that context.

Mrs. Clwyd: We are all encouraged by wider developments in the region. The past year has seen successful democratic elections in Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia and Botswana, together with the restoration of democracy in Lesotho and the signing of the Angolan peace agreement. Those events give us cause for optimism that real progress will be made in South Africa. At the same time, the fragility of the peace in Angola serves as a reminder that we must also be wary.
Labour Members are proud of the role that we played in the campaign to isolate the apartheid regime. My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) took positions of leadership in the Anti-Apartheid Movement, which mobilised thousands of committed people in that struggle. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) also took an active role in that campaign. I should also like to pay tribute to the role of Bishop Trevor Huddlestone.
The Commonwealth played a proud part. The apartheid regime engaged in the systematic use of armed forces and economic destabilisation against majority-ruled states in southern Africa. It backed terrorism elsewhere, yet the Commonwealth Heads of Government remained steadfast in their support for the liberation forces in South Africa.
In 1986, the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group produced a report supporting sanctions against the apartheid regime. Membership of that group included a former Conservative Prime Minister of Australia and a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, who had considerable economic interests in South Africa as chairman of the Standard Chartered bank.
Unfortunately, our Government ignored that report. For a long time, they refused contact with members of the African National Congress, whom they regarded as terrorists. Despite the intransigence of Baroness Thatcher's Government, the Commonwealth continued to play an active role in the ending of apartheid, right up until the final days of that hated regime.
All hon. Members will rejoice in the ending of apartheid, but let us not suppose for a moment that the fight is over. South Africa still has massive problems to overcome in terms of economic, social and political development. The country has unique problems. According to some indicators, it has a relatively developed economy, but we know that the vast majority of its people live in conditions that are comparable with those in developing nations.
The national average for infant mortality among black South Africans is higher than the average in Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. According to United Nations Children's Fund data from the period 1980 to 1991, among the 10 neighbouring Southern African Development Community states, only Tanzania had a higher percentage of underweight children than the rural areas of South Africa.
Thirty per cent. of the black adult population of South Africa is illiterate, and a further 30 per cent. are considered to be functionally illiterate. That compares with adult illiteracy rates of 9 per cent. in Tanzania, 26 per cent. in Botswana, 27 per cent. in Zambia and 33 per cent. in Zimbabwe. The World bank believes that half the black work force is without formal sector employment. By any estimate, the number is probably over 6 million.
Although the number of black senior managers has doubled in the past few years, they still make up less than 4 per cent. of the total. In the interests of peaceful change, for the present, affirmative action has been downplayed.
Of about 40 million people, 17 million probably live below the minimum subsistence level. We are talking about a country in which, during the last decade, one sixth of the population earned two thirds of the income.
As blacks were merely temporary urban residents under apartheid, housing was deliberately neglected. Soweto, which, not long ago, was a new township, is now a city of 5 million. Just a few hundred migrant workers' hostels house up to 1 million people. There are over 200,000 squatters in the Pretoria and Johannesburg area alone and the population of the region is expected to rise by 80 per cent. by the year 2010.
A disproportionate number of households in poverty are headed by women and World bank research makes the point—we have made it time and again in the House—that investing in women's education probably provides the highest return on any investment in developing countries.
The skewed provision of health care was perhaps one of the cruellest effects of segregation. A black baby was 10 times more likely to die in infancy than a white baby. Lack of clean water, the constant struggle for food and the overcrowded housing all exacerbated a polarised system that had health care as fine as anywhere in the world for the few and a life expectancy worse than much of sub-Saharan Africa for the majority.
The problems facing South Africa emphasise the scale of the commitment needed from the rest of the world. The economy has been facing inwards for so long that it will be a slow and difficult process to restructure it. The campaign to disinvest from South Africa was a necessary support for the end to apartheid, but now we need to reverse that flow of capital while ensuring that it will help positive change rather than strengthen existing inequalities.
The reconstruction and development programme, known as the RDP, is the cornerstone of the new Government's policy to eradicate those problems. Its first


priority is to attack poverty and deprivation. As the Minister mentioned, specific proposals include employment creation, redistribution of land, building over 1 million new homes, providing clean water and sanitation to all and providing universal access to health care. It also seeks education and training from the cradle to the grave, together with the modernisation of industry. Above all, it wishes to extend and to deepen democracy. I think that we all agree that that last point is essential to meet the challenges facing South Africa.
Later this year, the first local government elections will be held in South Africa. Unfortunately, voter registration for those elections is dangerously low. It is vital that the people register if the important elections are to be given democratic legitimacy. Of course, the elections are extremely important for the complete democratic transformation of South Africa.
I welcome the technical support provided for the elections by the Commonwealth and the Overseas Development Administration. The United Kingdom and the wider international community have a duty to respond positively to requests for assistance. In particular, British local government can play a role in helping the new non-racial local government structures after the election.
We must welcome the decision of the Inkatha Freedom party to end its two-week-old boycott of Parliament last weekend. Whatever the rights and wrongs of its case, the issue of regional autonomy in Kwazulu Natal continues to threaten the future of the Government of national unity.
For all those reasons, while rejoicing in the progress made in South Africa, we must not assume that its problems are yesterday's problems and that our task is complete. There are a number of ways in which the United Kingdom could help South Africa to overcome the devastating legacy of apartheid. Our voice in the United Nations, including the Security Council and the key specialised agencies, as well as in the European Union and the Commonwealth, puts us in a unique position of influence in all those forums. This month the EU will be sending a fact-finding mission to investigate industrial co-operation. It will probably highlight the opportunities awaiting closer co-operation.
British investment accounts for 40 per cent. of the total foreign investment. Britain is South Africa's second most important trading partner after the United States. I acknowledge the United Kingdom's aid commitment to South Africa, which totals £100 million over three years. However, I am disappointed that that is less than half the cost of the unwanted Pergau dam, or about the same as the bonuses promised to a handful of top executives at Barings.
We could also offer vital assistance if we were to support South Africa's inclusion in the Lom éconvention, but in a way which benefits South Africa and does not harm the wider regional interests. The fourth Lome convention is an aid and trade agreement between members of the European Union and 70 ACP—African, Caribbean and Pacific—countries. In fact, 95 per cent. of the ACP's population live in sub-Saharan Africa. At present, South Africa is not covered by the convention.
Lomé IV lasts for 10 years, from 1990 to the year 2000. A joint mid-term review must be completed by the end of this month. Among other things, the review is re-examining national contributions to the European Development Fund which finances Lomé. The United Kingdom is the third largest contributor after Germany

and France, but the Government have given notice that they intend to cut their contribution to that funding by 30 per cent. I should like the Minister to explain the rationale behind that proposal because the Commission proposed that the budget should increase from 11 billion ecu to 14 billion ecu for 1995-2000.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty relating the hon. Lady's comments to the Bill.

Mrs. Clwyd: When the Bill was discussed in another place, there was a fairly wide-ranging discussion on South Africa.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All sorts of Bills are discussed in all sorts of places in all sorts of ways. I am purely responsible for the debate in this Chamber. I have made my point and I hope that the hon. Lady will respect that.

Mrs. Clwyd: We are talking about the contribution that this country can make to the future of South Africa. One of the ways we are doing that is, hopefully, by passing this Bill.
It is disgraceful that Britain is the only country that has called for a considerable reduction in its cash contribution to Lomé. Once again, we are the odd man out in Europe. I think that the point is sufficiently made.
President Mandela made it clear in his opening address to the South African Parliament last month that South Africa has no desire to detract from the efforts to help poorer countries within the ACP. Whether South Africa should be granted full membership or a looser form of association is open to discussion, but what is important is that a substantial relationship with the European Union is being sought by the South African Government as a matter of urgency and this country has considerable influence in that. Those matters can and will be pursued on other occasions, perhaps when the Conservative Whip is absent.
On behalf of the Labour party, I greatly welcome the return of South Africa to the international community and the Commonwealth. We fully support the Bill.

Mr. David Howell: This Second Reading debate is a good opportunity to welcome, on a bipartisan or, indeed, on a tripartisan basis, the arrival of South Africa in the Commonwealth. I know that it joined last year, but we are tidying the legislative requirements arising from that. This is also an opportunity to comment briefly on the entirely new and changed South Africa that is emerging and on the changed Commonwealth, something to which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred.
This debate also enables us to comment on the changed policies which the United Kingdom has been developing, is developing and will need to develop to respond to the circumstances being legislated for in the Bill.
We have all watched, sometimes with sadness and sometimes with high hopes, the ups and downs of South Africa as it has emerged from its horrific past and the prospects that have now opened up for all its people. About four years ago, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visited South Africa and expressed the hope that this day would soon come and that the British


Government would realise that a completely new set of policies and approaches were required on aid, training, assistance and, especially, on development.
We have begun to learn that aid, or the amount of that aid, does not necessarily equal development. The whole world now recognises that other motivations and mechanisms are at work which are possibly more effective in boosting development, especially in a country such as South Africa which has a vast infrastructure already in place and where there is a curious mixture that is often commented on: it is a first-world economy sitting in the middle of third-world economies.
We very much hope that South Africa's politics will work as a result of the courageous actions of a number of people who have already been mentioned in this debate. I hope in particular that South Africa's new leaders have the skill, not only to be adaptable in their economic policies—they have given some signs that they are in realising that private, inward investment will be the driving force of the new South Africa for which we are legislating—but to approach their governmental tasks in a way that allows some decentralisation and some autonomous rule. I hope that that will enable the views of Zulu and Kwazulu people to be accommodated. It appears that the leaders are just about managing to do that although there have been some tense developments, especially during the elections in April last year.
The new South Africa is full of opportunities and also full of needs that we have to meet in the most imaginative and lively way that we can. South Africa is joining a new Commonwealth whose membership, far from diminishing, is growing. It is striking that the new atmosphere in the Commonwealth—an atmosphere that will be reinforced by South Africa's full integration—is very different from that which prevailed in this country towards the Commonwealth and even in the Commonwealth gatherings of past years.
To be brutally frank, many people admired the good works of the Commonwealth but regarded it as a talking shop and a forum that was not fruitful when it came to advancing the interests of South Africa, the United Kingdom or any other of its members. That mood has gone. A signal that it has gone is that other countries are trying to join. They would not want to join a club if it were only a talking shop, and South Africa would not be wanting to join under the Bill if it regarded it as such.
As usual, the planners and grand strategists did not foresee what was happening. They wrote off the Commonwealth. They said that it was an interesting gathering of various worthy organisations but not part of the new global economic and geopolitical order. Their view is rapidly turning out to be wholly wrong. Something remarkable is happening.
The exciting new markets of the world, which will include South Africa if it gets its politics right, coincide increasingly with those of the Commonwealth countries. They are South Africa, parts of India, or certainly places such as Bombay and Bangalore, and Oceania countries–Australia and New Zealand, which is one of the sparkiest economies in the world. They include Singapore and, dare I say, Hong Kong and even Malaysia. I hope that, as a full member of the Commonwealth, South Africa will be

one of the new and expanding markets where the opportunities for British trade and interests will be so valuable.
The Bill marks not only an important step in the history of South Africa but an important moment in the history of the Commonwealth. Another great, and potentially very great, economy is coming back into the global system. I cannot resist mentioning the fact that we have well under half our interests in the European Union and considerably more than half, in terms of our total overseas earnings, outside the European Union in the booming markets of Asia and, I hope, increasingly, South Africa. We should take note of the great change in the trend of world trade, which is relevant to South Africa and its membership of the Commonwealth.
As the Minister and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, it is not only a matter of trade. It has been said that the United Kingdom's investment in South Africa amounts to some £8 billion to £10 billion, although the figure that I have is £10 billion. Investment is beginning to flow back into South Africa. That is crucial, especially when it involves people in South Africa putting their own money back into the country. It is a sign that the situation is turning around.
We can consider our own interests when passing this legislation and we need to consider not only our overseas trade and earnings but our overseas assets. The majority—80 per cent.—of our earning assets overseas are in South Africa and the booming Asian economies, on the Indian subcontinent and in Latin America. Up to 60 or 70 per cent. of our colossal invisible income comes from outside Europe, from the new markets.
I have long argued that, although we must get our relations right with the European Union, it is, as the Bill reminds us, to the new markets where we already have much of our investment, that we should address our foreign policy interests and around which we should adjust our aid, development, training and human resource policies to ensure that our country's interests are enlarged as well as those of South Africa, as it joins the Commonwealth.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to do so—I believe that it is fully understood—but I plead with the Government to bear in mind the fact that we are considering Britain's interests. We are not considering Europe alone; in bringing South Africa into the Commonwealth, we can also promote our own interests.
The Prime Minister had a very successful trip to South Africa last September, when he mentioned many of those issues and saluted the welcome arrival of South Africa in the Commonwealth. He was also able to emphasise a new aspect of our relationship with South Africa—one that would be enhanced once it was fully in the Commonwealth. That is relevant to the schedules in the Bill, which deal with some military aspects, albeit at one remove.
The Prime Minister surprised many people, as he said that we would be able to contribute to South Africa not merely by providing products—on those we have good and bad performance—or managerial skills, which are needed, but also by providing training for public administration, the military and the police and many other forms of human resource service of a type with which those of us considering categories of trade and investment are not usually familiar. He was touching on a very important new role for this country in markets such as


South Africa, southern Africa and the other Commonwealth countries that I described, which were written off and have suddenly turned out to be the booming opportunities of the future.
The British military advisory training team is operating in South Africa in just the way that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs hoped that it would four years ago, and in the way that it operates in a number of southern African countries. Suddenly, the world is anxious to purchase our skills in military training and in integrating the different military groups that were fighting each other in and around the edges of South Africa.
Countries are anxious to purchase our skills in providing good public administration, local government, and police administration, as well as legal and consultancy—a range of skills at which this country happens to be extremely good, in ways that we perhaps do not always appreciate. If we move into the new markets, like that provided by this new member of the Commonwealth, we can successfully deliver such a service—to the benefit of the recipient and of our own affairs.
The Bill is a very valuable opportunity to ensure that we turn our policy away from—dare I say it—too much of an obsession with local affairs in Europe and Eurocentricity and towards our old friends, who have become our friends again in the Commonwealth structure, such as South Africa.
We have the opportunity to develop the resource exports and earnings that I described with South Africa and other countries in a way that we have not done in the past. We have the opportunity to ensure that South Africa has access to the European Union, of which we are a member. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that the European Union was interested in various aspects of aid to South Africa. She even suggested that the Lomé convention should somehow embrace that country. We want to make very sure that the European Union is open to South African goods, which it by no means is, and that our friends in the Commonwealth countries that are seeking to be booming markets—I hope that South Africa will he one—have an opportunity to market their goods in European markets.
We want to ensure that our aid and development policies are not entirely hijacked by countries with different priorities. As a global power, with global friends and markets, and long historical links with countries like South Africa, we must ensure that we are able to use our aid and development as much as we can to further those interests—to put it bluntly—rather than the different interests and priorities of other countries, which may want to use their aid and development as they wish. They should leave us to use our aid and development as we wish and to use it in our interests.
This is an important moment for the House, for South Africa and for southern Africa around it, which will, I hope, benefit from that country's increasing stability and economic prosperity. This is also an important moment for those of us who are interested in ensuring that our island and country has a strong place in the completely new global order that is emerging as we move into the next millennium.

Sir David Steel: This is indeed a very happy occasion and I readily join members of others parties in welcoming the Bill and in welcoming South Africa back into the Commonwealth.
The Minister began by reminding us that Dr. Verwoerd led South Africa out of the Commonwealth more than 30 years ago, in anticipation of its expulsion. The Sharpeville massacre in 1960 was the single event that, more than any other, triggered the expulsion. As a student at Edinburgh university at the time, I remember my reaction as someone who had been at school in east Africa and I remember the deep sense of shock that went around the world. I signed up as a member of the new Anti-Apartheid Movement, little realising that later, when I came to the House, I would serve as its president for four years in the late
1960s.
I must also pay tribute to the many people who did not live to see the transition that we are celebrating today. I remember some of the people I worked with at the time, who were exiles from South Africa in London. One thinks of Ruth First, who was later blown up by a bomb. When I met her husband, Joe Slovo, at a very tricky point during the CODESA, Convention for a Democratic South Africa, negotiations in South Africa a couple of years ago, just after AWB—Afrikaanse Werstandsbeweging—thugs had driven through the wall of the convention building, he was in an extraordinarily optimistic mood. When I expressed great concern about the slowness and stickiness of the negotiations, he was bubbling away, saying, "No, no, have confidence. It's all going to work. We're going to get through these negotiations and see the transition." Before his death, he served for a tragically short time as the Minister of Housing in the new Government.
I think of people like Albie Sachs, who was also blown up by a bomb and remains severely injured to this day. I also think of people from the liberation organisations, who used to visit us in London when they were in exile—people like Oliver Tambo and Sam Nujoma, who is now the president of Namibia—and of the meetings that we used to have in those days. They were either small meetings here in the House or great rallies across the road in Methodist Central hall. On an occasion like this, it is right that we pause and remember those people.
I recall my first visit to South Africa in 1972 and the horrible conditions in which one had to meet people who opposed the Government. A pew in the Anglican cathedral was the only place that I was allowed to meet Helen Joseph, because she was under a banning order. I remember the brave women of the Black Sash movement, who did such practical work to alleviate the awful effects of the pass laws on individual citizens. I also remember the sports boycott campaign and later the sanctions campaign.
I also think of two people I knew in the Liberal party in South Africa. That party dissolved rather than accept the imposition of racism on political parties. Alan Paton and his party ceased to exist as a political movement, but other people formed the Progressive Federal party, which later became the Democratic party. Notwithstanding the racist nature of politics and the political set-up, they believed that they should try, however inadequately, to mount some kind of opposition within the parliamentary system.

The great Helen Suzman was outstanding among those people and was, for so many years, alone. Even though, in later years, I disagreed with her over sanctions, I remain an intense admirer of the skills with which she battled alone in Parliament, and we have remained very good friends. I also remember Colin Eglin, whose role as her successor and leader of that small party was far greater in the negotiations and transition than the electoral strength of the party would have suggested. All those people deserve to be honoured on an occasion like this.
The British Government always had a somewhat ambivalent posture, to put it mildly—I do not want to be controversial on a day like this—towards the South African Government. I went to South Africa again in 1986 as party leader. Although the British Government would not meet anyone from the African National Congress, they were happy to arrange for me to be hosted by our high commissioner in Lusaka, where the ANC had its offices in exile, and for me to meet Oliver Tambo and Thabo Mbeki in the drawing room of the British high commission. I could never quite get over the distinctions that the Foreign Office drew between contact and non-contact. It was a very positive discussion.
On that occasion, if the House will forgive one further reminiscence, I had my first meeting with Pik Botha. He took the wind out of my sails. It was a tense meeting because I had been refused permission to meet the current President Mandela—then of course prisoner Mandela—and I was naturally angry about that. I visited Foreign Minister Pik Botha, and he spent the first 10 minutes of a long meeting trying to persuade me that he was really a liberal and that, unfortunately, all those other people in the Government were preventing him from doing the things that he would like to do.

Mr. John Carlisle: He is a liberal.

Sir David Steel: Perhaps later he justified some of that reputation.
I looked up some of the notes of the meeting the other day. I remember one amusing exchange when he said, "You people who come from London pay far too much attention to the person of Nelson Mandela. After all, the chap has had no experience of Government. He has hardly ever made a speech; he has never held a press conference." As he obviously saw my jaw dropping, he added, "I don't suppose that was really his fault"—which, in retrospect, was the understatement of the year.
Anyway, those are past days, and now we glory in the transition that has taken place. Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I had the great pleasure and privilege of participating in the South African elections and in helping the supervision and monitoring process in Natal Province during that election. What a heart-warming and emotional experience that was. President de Klerk deserves thanks and congratulations for the imagination that he showed in leading his country, and especially his party, away from the past and on to the process of transition that is taking place.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley quoted part of Desmond Tutu's sermon in that great service that we had in Westminster Abbey. I remember that when he finished his analogy with the parable of the prodigal son and South Africa returning home, he finished by saying, "and so we

are having a party"—this in Westminster Abbey—and it was a great party. The country is about to have another party with the state visit of Her Majesty the Queen, which I am sure will be greatly appreciated by all races in South Africa. I trust that that visit will prove the seal on the act that we are performing today in passing the legislation.
I want to say three things about the future, because there is a danger of endless repetition of the same themes. Our future relations with South Africa are extremely important at the moment, especially in the investment sector. I listened to the list that the Minister gave of the aspects in which we were hoping to help in the public sector and in the private sector. I trust that it was only inadvertence that he missed out one important aspect—housing.
I believe that one of the great political problems that confronts the South African Government in its five-year period of transition and, perhaps more important, when they reach the end of that transition, is the failure to meet unreal expectations among the population. It is inevitable.
There was great excitement in the mass of population; apartheid was ending and President Mandela was being installed. There is a natural feeling among uneducated masses that jam will come tomorrow—but jam will not come tomorrow.
We can make fairly rapid progress in trying to improve housing conditions and, in so doing, we can produce some immediate employment. I hope that every effort will be made in the public and private sectors to increase investment in housing fairly immediately and dramatically.
Secondly, I believe that the regional role of South Africa is most important. I gladly follow the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in that theme. Since South Africa left the Commonwealth, the surrounding picture in Africa has changed out of all recognition for the better. Almost every one of South Africa's neighbours to the north, to the east and to the west are now democratic. The only one over which a question mark continues to hang is Angola. The change is there and it is real. It has been one of the most encouraging political developments in a globe that is not always full of good news, that the countries of southern, central and eastern Africa are becoming more democratic and are beginning to follow the norms of good governance.
South Africa itself is in such a dominant position economically that she needs to be the power house of the regeneration of the whole region. With the single exception of South Africa, I have noticed that there has been a tendency, in British and international political discussion, to write off Africa in recent times. That is why I was rather cheered by the speech of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) to which we have just listened.
I hope that attention is returning to the needs of Africa, and that South Africa will be regarded as the pivotal power in that region, not as an isolated country.
Thirdly, I want to sound a word of caution. During the period of sanctions, it was inevitable, I suppose, that South Africa would build up an arms industry of its own. I know that there is intense discussion in the present Government about the future of Armscor. I hope very much that, whatever else happens in South Africa, it will not continue to be one of the arms-exporting industries countries of the world.


As recently as about 18 months ago, it was discovered that the South African arms industry had been supplying both sides in the Rwanda civil war. That is not a record of which the new South Africa should be proud, and I hope very much that the arms industry will not play a major part in the future economy of South Africa.
I conclude by joining, as I started, in congratulating all the people of South Africa who have made that transition possible, and welcoming them back into the Commonwealth. The people of South Africa have triumphed. They are at the moment in a mood of optimism, and it is up to us in the outside community to do our best to sustain that.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I welcome the chance to make a brief contribution, and to follow the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). I agree with a great deal of what he said. He took us very eloquently down the lanes of our recent memories. He mentioned several people, in South Africa and in this country, who are familiar to all of us, and we know of his long-standing interest, and indeed family background, in that part of world.
Without mentioning any further names, let me say something that emphasises what the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale said. I visited South Africa about 18 months ago, when we were discussing the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association contribution to the elections. I had on my right-hand side, at the then embassy, someone who had done 12 years in Robben Island, who now is a distinguished political servant of the present Government, and on my left-hand side a similar servant of the present Government, who had done 10 years. At that time, when one would have thought that the atmosphere would be becoming tense and the elections were approaching—and those people were then but African National Congress servants—I was unable to determine, throughout the dinner, an iota of enmity towards those who had oppressed them.
That is one of the best things that the new Government have in their favour. There are many other dangers, but the spirit of enmity—the spirit of revenge—was definitely not there. The balance that that peculiar island appears to have given to so many people who are now outstanding servants of a new country is remarkable. Goodness knows, we all wish it well.
In that spirit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you have given a wide licence to the debate because the Bill is very limited, I say that I very much welcome the readmission of South Africa to the Commonwealth. I do so on behalf especially of the British South Africa all-party parliamentary group, which I have the honour to chair.
The rivalries and divisions in South Africa, as with so many other things, were mirrored in the House. It is no exaggeration to say that one of the most acrimonious meetings that I have attended in the House took place in 1987, when we created the then British Southern Africa all-party parliamentary group as an alternative to the then British South Africa parliamentary group. Well in excess of 100 colleagues from both sides of the House were present. The meeting was bitter and divided. I was standing for a certain office. Other hon. Friends were standing for other offices.
I am not talking about the past. The old British South Africa parliamentary group is now a welcome part of our new British South Africa group. Indeed, only a few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), the last chairman of the old British Southern Africa group, was sitting next to me.

Mr. John Carlisle: He was the secretary.

Mr. Temple-Morris: And my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was its chairman. Forgive me for getting the offices wrong. The important point is that, if that can be done in South Africa, we can do it at Westminster. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will be mentioned a little later by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). It, too, has an important role to play, as does the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
What has happened in South Africa is remarkable and I emphasise that the Bill can help in the process. The United Kingdom has much to do by way of training schemes—the police and the military have already been mentioned. We can also contribute by helping in local elections.
May I make just one point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)? I do not mean it in an unduly debating way, because this is not that type of debate. I agree that we must support British interests and concentrate on new friends and markets, but we must not forget that, although South Africa is interested in this country, what is paramount is its access to the European market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford mentioned that. When British people talk about going out to South Africa, we must bear in mind what we can do for that country. We have much to give and can also help in the European context.
That leads me to the most substantive point that I wish to make: the need to develop the South African economy. Such development is vital for the successful future of a country whose honeymoon period is virtually over. This is our first opportunity in the House to salute what has been happening, many hon. Members having had a little to do with it.
As we progress, we must recognise that South Africa is entering more difficult periods, which is why the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale mentioned the need for housing in developing South Africa's economy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, we are effectively dealing with two countries: a first division country and a developing country. When such a sudden transition takes place, triumphant though it is, there is a danger that it will be taken too rapidly. We must not encourage South Africa to get too carried away with it. It must keep its feet on the ground.
Through certain personal experiences, I have a horror of the extremes of export capitalism, if I may call it such. One has seen whole societies in developing countries taken apart, their whole way of life grievously disturbed and corrupted, which has led to revolution. I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience. A real danger exists in that respect for South Africa. The good news is that there are probably enough people in South Africa to steady the Buffs and bring the necessary reality into the picture. It is not for us to race at development.


We must realise that when we go to South Africa and take from it, we must also give to it. That is the sort of society that we have and why we can contribute.
Last, but not least, is the all-important question of access to the European market. We are members of the European Union so, nationally, we can do only so much. South Africa wants access to Europe and we should recognise that we can help in that respect. It is difficult to say that South Africa will become a member of Lome, because of the diversity within the country. Perhaps we should accelerate either the process of membership or association with Lome or some special bilateral agreement between the European Union and South Africa, so that South Africa knows where it stands with regard to access to European Union markets.
The main message is that we should act soon, and act above all for the benefit of South Africa.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I contribute to this debate largely because, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, although the Bill is technical, this debate is our first opportunity to devote ourselves exclusively to the momentous events that occurred last year in South Africa. Those events were beyond our wildest dreams.
For the past three years, I have been a member of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, representing this country and the Mediterranean part of the Commonwealth. Throughout that period and before it, there was not a conference or meeting at which South Africa was not the focus of attention of the whole Commonwealth. Great fears were
expressed by Sonny Ramphal, the previous Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. We seriously discussed what the Commonwealth would do to aid the small African countries surrounding South Africa if a bloodbath were to occur and how we would help them with refugees and by giving aid. Thank God that nothing remotely like that happened.
I pay tribute to two people, above all, who have brought the current position about—one black and one white. Incidentally, they both came out of a prison to do that. The black one is President Nelson Mandela, who suffered the indignity, disgrace and discomfiture of being imprisoned for most of his adult life, not for a crime which the rest of the world believed in but for his beliefs, his desire to improve the lot of his own people and his desire for democracy and the values that we all share in the House, whatever our party.
The white prisoner is Mr. de Klerk. South Africa would not be where it is today without Mr. de Klerk. He was a prisoner of a system—a cultural system of racism institutionalised by apartheid. He must have made many enemies within the National party and South Africa because he had the foresight to recognise that such a system could not continue in the modern world. He had the foresight to create the opportunity to bring Nelson Mandela out of prison, hold democratic elections, albeit supervised, and step down as president and allow a black man who had been in prison for most of his life to succeed him as president of South Africa. I therefore pay tribute to them both as they are both responsible for the present democratic state of South Africa.
Another reason why I speak in this debate is that, like the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), I am honoured to be a governor of the Commonwealth Institute, which is the first institution named in the schedule to the Bill. It has a considerable part to play in helping this country and Europe to understand South Africa and what it means to bring that country back into the Commonwealth of nations.
The South African economy has been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who has temporarily left the Chamber, rightly said that many European institutions do not recognise the momentous events that have occurred, and South African goods are still banned from those countries. Even in this country, not everyone has caught up with the developments. We have long been accustomed, because of apartheid, not to drink South African wine, eat South African fruits or visit South Africa.
We must wake up to the fact that things have changed and organisations like the Commonwealth Institute can play a role in reminding people in this country that South Africa is now a democratic country that desperately needs exports and tourism. The institute and the Commonwealth officers must get the message across not only in this country but to the United States of America and to those European nations that have not caught up with the pace of events. That will be our welcome to South Africa as a new member of the Commonwealth.
I think that the institute can play an important role in that process. It was created from the old Imperial Institute by the House in 1958 and, as many hon. Members know, it has premises in Kensington. The institute will do its best to perform this additional duty in respect of South Africa, although it has recently suffered a considerable setback at the hands of the Government.
Despite an excellent Government report in its favour, the institute stands to lose 66 per cent. of its grant next year and 20 per cent. thereafter. Its Government grant will cease entirely in 1998-99. That is no way to treat an institution whose importance the Government recognise in the Bill by placing it first in the list of institutions that can help in welcoming South Africa back to the Commonwealth.
The institute is fighting hack. Last year, it received more than £500,000 from various organisations; it is not sitting back and relying on Government funding or lying down to die because the Government grant is to disappear. It is fighting back, and it will win that fight. It will provide many new attractions, including exhibitions, seminars, conferences, displays and educational material about the newest member of the Commonwealth.
Tourism will be most important to South Africa. South Africa has sunshine—something that we in Europe need so badly—during our winter. We are geographically closer to South Africa than to India, Australia, or Thailand. It is very expensive to travel there at the moment, but I hope that tourism firms in this country will recognise South Africa's enormous tourist potential.
As well as the sunshine, South Africa has some of the best beaches in the world, game parks and great cities. It has a tourist infrastructure unequalled by most other African countries, with hotels, restaurants and caravan and camping grounds. It is a paradise for the tourist. Most important of all, South Africa has that hallmark of true


civilisation: people drive on the left-hand side of the road. That will certainly prove to be a big attraction for British tourists.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Would it not be a good idea for the Parliament to travel to South Africa in January or February for a joint session with the South African Parliament to discuss matters of common interest?

Mr. Oakes: I think that that is a superb idea. I would not inflict the rigours of a British winter on the new South African Parliament by inviting its members to this Chamber. I think that it is a great idea, although my hon. Friend's suggestion is made tongue in cheek.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster, who referred to our role in Europe. We can play an important transitional or bridging role in South Africa's development as the link between that new member of the Commonwealth and the whole of Europe. I do not believe that one cannot be a passionate supporter of Europe and a supporter of the Commonwealth. There is nothing alien about that. I emphasise that Britain can play an important role in bridging the gap between Europe and the Commonwealth. Tourists from this country, Germany, Scandinavia, Holland, and so on would flock to the South African sunshine if the tourist industry were to get its act together and provide holiday opportunities.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. Does he think that there should be more public pressure on the South African and the British airlines to increase passenger capacity on flights to South Africa? It is almost impossible to book a seat on a plane to South Africa from about November to February. That shows that the prices are too high and the passenger capacity is too small.

Mr. Oakes: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that private enterprise will take the lead—as it did in the case of Spain—and that some of the smaller companies will break the ring of airline prices by offering cheap fares and package tours.
Tourism is one of the few industries today that is labour intensive. It generates many jobs of all sorts—not just high-powered ones, but jobs for waiters, chamber maids and chefs—in the country that is the tourist destination. I hope that the Commonwealth Institute will urge the tourist industry to hold a seminar for educational purposes. It will be performing a valuable task not only for this country but for the Commonwealth as a whole.
Every member of the House—and certainly every member of the Commonwealth—warmly welcomes the return of South Africa to the Commonwealth of nations as a democratic country. As the hon. Member for Leominster and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) said, South Africa will experience great difficulties. After the euphoria of gaining the vote, people will expect to secure jobs and own houses immediately. That will not occur within a year—it may not occur for a decade.
President Mandela and the Government of South Africa face an uphill battle. They have inveterate enemies within South Africa who want to see them fail. There is a tremendous groundswell of demand from the people of South Africa who have waited all their lives for the economic freedom that they do not yet enjoy. They will

not have that freedom until the South African Government have sufficient resources to provide the necessary infrastructure, jobs, educational places, and so on.
This country—with our close historical bonds, our investments in and our love of South Africa—should take the lead in helping the South African Government to provide the economic liberty that the people of South Africa quite rightly demand.

Mr. John Carlisle: It is a personal pleasure for me to address my remarks to the House in a somewhat calmer atmosphere than that which has greeted my comments on the somewhat thorny subject of South Africa in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, in the spirit of "no revenge", I shall not try to wreak any on Opposition Members or upon my hon. Friends.
In the context of the South Africa Bill, I would like to lay to rest two old chestnuts that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) tried to revive. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Lady's pardon if I have mispronounced the name of her constituency but, following the defeat at Murrayfield on Saturday, I have forgotten everything that might be supportive of her adopted country.
I totally refute the claim that I ever supported the system of apartheid. I said on many occasions on the Floor of the House that I considered it to be a gross violation of human rights. I worked to end apartheid. The difference between the hon. Lady and some of her friends and me is that we went about it differently. The hon. Lady and her friends and other opponents of the South African Government sought to end apartheid by chucking stones at a glasshouse. I respect their opinion and the way in which they waged their campaign. I felt—as my Government did to a certain extent—that contact with South Africa was necessary to ensure that change occurred from within that country.
In that context, the almost total castigation of all South African politicians who were members of that Government, and in some cases possibly of the then Opposition, was totally wrong, because many politicians in South Africa—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) mentioned one of the most prominent ones—were totally against the system of apartheid and were working even within the National party, let alone on the liberal side, to have that system abolished. Mr. de Klerk, not at the time the greatest liberal of them all, had the courage to see that the system was not only unworkable but unacceptable to the rest of the world.
My second point is that I said in the House, even before South Africa had a change of Government, that I was looking forward to the day that it would rejoin the Commonwealth. It was a great sadness to many of us when in 1961 it voluntarily withdrew from the Commonwealth, with all the problems that it faced from that time onwards. I hope that we will welcome the Bill in a spirit of reconciliation and looking to the future; I certainly would like to do so.
In some cases, the effect of sanctions had some political advantages in changing the then South African Government's mind; but they also had, as I think members of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and others must recognise, a devastating effect on the lives of many South Africans.


I found it strange that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley came to my constituency and, with great relish, in front of the press photographers poured bottles of South African red wine down the drain under some banner outside one of my public houses. I still have the photograph, if the hon. Lady would like to see it. That wine was produced in the Cape, mainly by those of non-white origin. Had the hon. Lady visited South Africa, as I did at the time, and spoken to the workers at those wine farms and in those factories, she would have appreciated that it was very easy, from the lush pastures of Westminster, to cry foul and support sanctions when they had a devastating effect on jobs, and realised the full implications of that policy on the people at that time.
This is not the place to argue about whether sanctions were correct or whether they had the effect that some would claim for them, but they brought enormous misery to many people and were not totally supported throughout South Africa.
I shall confine the remainder of my remarks to welcoming the resumption of sporting relationships throughout the Commonwealth and other bodies. As the House will know, that has been the force of my campaign ever since I entered Parliament in 1979.
I salute the leaders of the African National Congress and in particular President Mandela, who as soon as he began to have some political influence, even before he became president after the election last April, said that sports sanctions should be lifted. He surprised many observers, as that was a political weapon which he could so easily have used to beat not only the white politicians, who at that time still held power within South Africa, but those outside who did not wish South Africa particularly well. Almost as soon as he was released from prison, he instructed that the ANC should co-operate in terms of the bringing international supporting relations back to South Africa. I congratulate and salute him for that, although at the time it was a surprise to me and the rest of the sporting word.
It is one area in which contact was continued, in some cases in difficult and unfortunate circumstances. It meant that the aspirations of some South Africans, black and white, were to a limited extent still met in a system that was not acceptable to everybody: but, because many courageous sports administrators wanted to maintain and encourage sporting contacts with the rest of the world, in the early 1980s the then South African Government said that discrimination in sport was put on one side and apartheid laws such as pass laws did not exist for sporting purposes.
We welcome South Africa back into the Commonwealth. We welcome the fact that sportsmen and women are playing on international fields. They played a marvellous game in Auckland in the centenary test against the New Zealanders. We look forward to English participation—and possibly Welsh participation, in honour of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley—in the World cup in South Africa, and in particular the visit by the Lords and Commons IX in September to fly the parliamentary flag so well flown in this place by the hon. Member for Leominster and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). I know that many hon. Members are very much looking forward to that trip. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, the Commonwealth

games, or the friendly games, are the place where South Africans have a chance to meet fellow sports men and women throughout the world, and the spirit of those games has improved over the past few years.
I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford that the Commonwealth now has higher standing than before. That is possibly because the thorny question of South Africa has now gone off the agenda. As the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said, Sonny Ramphal, in his time as the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, seemed to spend most of his time berating the South Africans or trying to help those countries surrounding South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that some of his worst fears were never actually realised. Perhaps the politicians in Pretoria were not quite the ogres they were originally thought to be.
The Commonwealth now has a chance to improve its image and, indeed, to become a greater power in a competitive international world. In business terms, South Africa will need an enormous amount of investment, and there are still those who are hung up on the old system. It is the duty of the House, and partly the purpose of the Bill, to ensure all the old adages and thoughts about South Africa are now swept on one side on the basis that it is a country that can give enormous impetus to the business economy in that part of the world. If it does so through trading within the Commonwealth, so be it; that obviously is to its advantage.
We can ill afford to ignore the part that South Africa has played, certainly in economic terms, over the past few years. I would say to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that, even before the change of Government, South Africa was trading with some 49 out of 51 African countries, and in some cases helping them with their economies. The prospects are very good. The shadow over South Africa is its own internal problems, over which we have little control. They involve the tribal system, which is rife throughout the whole of South Africa and which is a proud tradition not only in the black population but in the white population. That, to a certain extent, is for South Africa to sort out, with our assistance, guidance and help.
I welcome the Bill. It is a joy for me to see South Africa back on an agenda to be talked about with pleasure, and back in the family of the Commonwealth. I salute the visit of Her Majesty the Queen within the next few weeks or so. It obviously will be an enormous boost to that country and I wish the Bill Godspeed through this place.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Like every other right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber, I welcome the Bill. It is perhaps a tribute to Nelson Mandela that he has created circumstances in which a Bill can be brought before the House that Members of all parties so warmly commend.
One of the reasons why Britain's relationship with South Africa is so important is that, because of the country's recent history, so many members of the present South Africa Government spent many years in Britain. I am sure that I am not alone in numbering as close personal friends a few members of the present South Africa Government.


When I was a student, I was lobbied on things South African by Aziz Pahed, who then worked in the ANC office in London and was deputed to lobby students. As deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in South Africa, he now fulfils the same role as the Under-Secretary of State.
I remember Nkozozana Dlamini-Zuma, now Minister for Health, who came to Britain after the Soweto disturbance to complete her medical training. When I was at York university, a fellow student in the centre for southern African studies was Alex Erwin, who is now deputy Finance Minister.
Our country and South Africa have a unique opportunity to forge close links built on this mutual understanding and friendship. It is in the interest of our country as much as of South Africa to ensure that country's economy develops successfully and vibrantly to the benefit of all people in South Africa. That could also act as a catalyst for development throughout Africa.
Of all the continents, Africa has the furthest to go in terms of development. It is the continent of greatest poverty, where more people become poor in real terms every year. It is important to aid the southern African economy to grow in every way that we can, so that it may act as a catalyst and powerhouse for development throughout Africa.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that good relationships with South Africa are essential for certain British industries? In engineering, for example, some additives to steel that make it suitable for particular purposes are found principally in South Africa and Namibia. It is in our economic interests that the relationships to which my hon. Friend referred are fostered.

Mr. Bayley: No, I did not know that—but as southern Africa is so mineral-rich, I wholly accept my hon. Friend's point, which emphasises my argument.
I was one of several hon. Members present in the Chamber who were fortunate to be asked last April by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to visit South Africa as election observers. On the final day that the votes were counted, there were not enough tickets for observers, so to do something useful I spent the day finding out about health care in South Africa, which is an interest of mine in terms of domestic policy.
I visited the Alexandra health centre in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg and Baragwaneth hospital, which serves Soweto. The doctors at Alexandra said that as there had been no census of black people in South Africa, they had undertaken a survey of social conditions. They identified 36 per cent. unemployment and 37 per cent. homelessness, with people living in self-built shacks.
Only 19 per cent. of Alexandra's population had running water in their homes and only 12 per cent. had toilets. Fewer than one person in 10 out of a population of hundreds of thousands was over the age of 40. That emphasises that although political apartheid has gone, the legacy of apartheid still runs deep. We have humanitarian obligations to address that legacy and those inequalities.
I was told at Baragwaneth hospital that the World Bank had reported that 53 per cent. of all children aged two to four in South Africa have stunted growth because of malnutrition. South Africa has half a million people infected with HIV, and another 500 cases are reported

each day. It is expected that in 15 years, between 18 per cent. and 24 per cent. of South Africa's population will be infected.
If a rich and developed country such as Britain faced that burden of disease, its economic development, viability and social stability would be tremendously compromised and threatened. When a poorer country such as South Africa is under such a burden, although we wish it well, that places many rocks on the path to its economic development.
I agree with the Minister that South Africa's development will need investment and trade as well as aid. Investment and trade will be driven by market forces. I urge the Minister to guarantee that the Government will the UK aid for South Africa's reconstruction to further the principles of social justice and erase the legacy of apartheid. That would be wholly consistent with the Government priority of targeting aid at the poor—since the poor were the victims of apartheid.

Mr. Baldry: I have no difficulty giving the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.

Mr. Bayley: I am delighted to hear that, and I will make one further bid.
The problems of social disadvantage in South Africa will be dealt with largely by local authorities rather than the national Government. The Minister mentioned the elections in October. The Local Government International Bureau says that a number of British local authorities have expressed interest in playing a part in assisting the development of South African social policy through technical co-operation.
The local authority technical link scheme for eastern Europe could perhaps provide a model for the exchange or provision of expertise. That scheme was recently evaluated, and although improvements were proposed, it was found generally to provide good value for money. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on whether a similar scheme could be launched for southern Africa as part of Britain's development programme.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who was in South Africa during the course of the elections as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association outbound delegation.
I join the general felicitations for South Africa's return to the Commonwealth which gives rise to today's debate. Tonight in the Palace of Westminster, for the first time since 1961, we have the presence of a member of South Africa's national Parliament as a delegate to the 44th Westminster parliamentary seminar, co-hosted by the UK branch and international secretariat of the CPA, of which I have the honour to be chairman of the executive committee. It is a nice coincidence that both occasions are running in parallel tonight.
Some years ago, we resolved to reach out beyond the CPA's natural remit to countries outside the Commonwealth, because we felt it appropriate, where there was a historical connection, to draw them back in by whatever means. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and I served for a number of years on the international executive committee, and worked together to that end in respect of South Africa.


One of my first pleasures on assuming the office that I continue to hold was to lead a mission to South Africa in November 1993. It was the exciting time when the transitional constitution was being finally drafted. The purpose was to restate the invitation of Commonwealth parliamentarians to return to—I must be careful these days—the brotherhood of the Commonwealth. We must be politically correct.
During the mission, we talked to all the leaderships of the political parties that would have Members of Parliament. We talked to all the agencies that would be involved in running elections. We talked also to those in the voluntary sector—the Churches, for example. We found what I can only describe as a hunger for shared experience. As parliamentarians, we have our experience to share.
The people to whom we talked were interested in the workings of elections. How were voters to be educated? How was the electoral mechanism to operate? Hovering on the scene was wonderment at what would happen after the forthcoming election. There was no doubt among those to whom we talked that the election would take place, but they were interested in what would happen after that. As soon as the election took place, we restated our invitation to South Africa to engage in Commonwealth parliamentary affairs.
It was a great pleasure to have observers at the African regional conference in May 1994 at Nairobi in the shape of two Clerks of the South African Parliament. In September, the two Houses of the National Assembly passed resolutions to join the CPA. We had for the first time, under the leadership of Senator Govan Mbeki, a full delegation at the plenary conference at Alberta. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister enjoyed the bilateral meetings that he had with that delegation, as I did, under the senator's remarkable leadershi.
Many tributes have been paid to personalities during the debate, and it is singular that Senator Mbeki has not been mentioned so far. I want to rectify the omission.
He is a magnificent gentleman who spent 25 years incarcerated on Robben island. He has a serenity and tranquillity about him the like of which I have never come across before, anywhere. I asked him how he survived 25 years of incarceration without becoming bitter, and how he had developed such inner strength. He replied, "Well, I realised that there was another way. I spent my time in prison teaching the incoming youngsters that there was another way." The transitional process reflects the fruits of Senator Mbeki's work, along with that of Nelson Mandela, who also has inner tranquillity and the awareness that there is another way. That is why we now have stability.
One of the common threads of the CPA's discussions is the need to shorten the learning curve of parliamentary expertise. The young lady who escorted me through the parliamentary buildings at Cape Town in August was, as it were, a pointer. She was of indian extraction. I asked how she found things. She replied, "It is extraordinary. I passed here for 20 years as a schoolgirl and student, and it meant nothing to me. Now I am part of it. It is me." She has been engaged in the learning curve. She realised how much there was to learn about working the institution. That common thread has come through all my subsequent discussions.
In the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister, and implicit in his brief, is the recognition that priority must be given to the concept of good governance. That has already been said about local government. Good governance is not only the good administration of government: it also involves the understanding of parliamentarians of those who have been elected to various institutions. We can make a contribution as parliamentarians. When I talk about parliamentarians, I mean the broadest spectrum of membership of the CPA.
We believe in this place that we have much to offer, but we are not alone. There is a tremendous wealth of experience among 11,000 parliamentary Members from all forms and structures of democracy in the Commonwealth. The strength of the CPA is that we can draw together the key people who are needed to match a workshop to the needs of the moment and the agenda for it. It is a unique and powerful asset.
In South Africa, there is a National Assembly with two Houses. There are also nine provincial Parliaments. Most of the Members of the provincial Parliaments have never sat before in any instrument of government, or instrument of legislation. That is where one of our great tasks lies.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think about investing some of his aid budget, in conjunction with Baroness Chalker as Minister with responsibilities for overseas development, in parliamentary workshops. A multiplicity of workshops is required within the terms of a good-value-for-money operation. It will not be good enough to set up one workshop and leave. I envisage a programme that will continue over many years. Constant attention must be given to meeting the need.
We must pull together as well the political and parliamentary expertise in surrounding countries, all of which are welcoming the concept of seminars or workshops. I prefer in this context to talk about workshops. We shall be setting up one in Botswana in May-June. We set up one recently in Malawi. One was established recently in Lesotho.
We must maintain the pressure on a wider basis, so that parliamentarians get to know one another, talk to one another and understand and share experiences. Shared experience will lead to a set of circumstances that stops electioneering on the basis of unnaturally heightened expectations. Electioneering must be based on deliverable promises and an understanding of how to deliver those promises. These understandings are so important if there is to be sustained credibility in the concept of democratic elections and government.

Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend has ideas that he would like to bring forward, it goes without saying that my right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker and I would give them constructive consideration.

Mr. Shepherd: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Having drawn his intervention, I shall move on to my final remarks.
To put on a different hat, we are doing our bit in gener-ating trade between the United Kingdom and South Africa. One of the greatest pleasures that I have had as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Catering was to say on the day after South Africa rejoined the Common-wealth, "Let there be South African wines for sale in the Dining Room." The House is doing its bit.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I join all hon. Members in welcoming South Africa back to the Commonwealth, and have very much enjoyed the contributions to the debate. I have one small interest to declare, in that I spent a lot of time in South Africa in the 1980s. I was arrested by the South African police.
Perhaps, unlike the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who is no longer in his place, I saw a different side to South Africa on my visits down there. I wrote a book—now long remaindered and forgotten—about the black trade union movement, "Black workers, their unions and the struggle for freedom in South Africa". If any hon. Member really cannot fall asleep tonight, I would be happy to provide a copy.
I welcome the Bill and pay tribute—many tributes have been paid this afternoon—to the people who have not been mentioned: those in the black trade union movement in South Africa, who, in the 1970s and 1980s, were the school of democracy, out of which the black majority in South Africa grew into a democratic maturity, which enabled them, with the help of the ANC and of overseas support, to form a movement of ideas and pressures such that it obliged President de Klerk—I salute his recognition of what was happening—to recognise reality.
The Minister referred to the help for entrepreneurs that the Government are providing. I would like him in his closing remarks to address the question of what help he will be providing the trade union movement in South Africa, via the Trades Union Congress and the Commonwealth Trades Union Council, which is linked to the Commonwealth Institute.
I know that our ambassador in South Africa has a discretionary fund of some £50,000, which is used to help the several million trade unionists, and the Overseas Development Administration as a whole provides a little under £200,000 for trade union help throughout the entire world. I compare that with the Netherlands, a much smaller country than Britain, which provides some £6 million for that kind of work. The United Kingdom currently gives the smallest help of any industrial country supporting the trade union movement in South Africa. I draw the House's attention to that singular lapse in Government policy towards South Africa.
During the 1970s, Britain had a good record. The British consular department and British diplomats in South Africa were extremely helpful to the burgeoning black independent trade union movement. That was snuffed out dramatically in the 1980s, when the British embassy and British official offices in South Africa became no-go areas for the black trade union movement, at a time when other major countries, such as the United States, Germany, Sweden—even Japan—were giving help and support to the independent black trade union movement in South Africa.
American companies—the Minister referred to the role of British business—responded to the call of black South Africans by withdrawing from activity in South Africa. BMW and Mercedes, those giant German companies, formally signed legally binding social charter-type agreements with the black trade union movement in South Africa, while British companies, notably BTR and Shell, victimised trade unionists, repressed them, tried to break their unions and fired many thousands of workers after they had gone on strike.
We have turned a page, and that is good, but let this House record simply that the 1980s were a page of shame for British policy towards the South African people. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister might be prepared to pay tribute to the Trades Union Congress and to the Commonwealth Trades Union Congress, to express, perhaps, a word for the unknown trade unionists—if I had time, I would list the many names—who were killed in the struggle to form independent and democratic trade unions in South Africa.
South Africa has managed its return to democracy, and has done so in large part because of the great experience in democratic organisation of the trade union movement. When parliamentary procedures were denied to the black majority, it was in the trade union movement that they could develop the art of argument, compromise and give and take. That black independent trade union movement was the great school of South African democracy.
I hope that we can encourage British companies as they increase their investment in South Africa—and I wish them so to do—to enter into a partnership with the black independent trade union movement in South Africa, because the sphere of economic development, the need for social stability as South Africa tries to handle the problem of the expectations of the mass of its people, is so important for its future harmonious development.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome South Africa's return to the Commonwealth. I rejoice in the fact that I can now go back there freely, and not have to face harassment by the police. I welcome the fact that I can drink South African wine—and wonderful wines they are. I long to take my family on holiday to South Africa, because the air fares will become cheap and the tourist industry will develop.
But the British Government should learn lessons from their mishandling of working people in South Africa. They should step up aid, via the TUC and the Commonwealth Trades Union Council. They should also learn the lessons that, in many other parts of the world, it is the working people, whether in Indonesia or China, who are forming independent unions, which are the schools of democracy for those nations as they seek the path not just to development or economic growth but to a democratic participation in the international comity of nations.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I rise to express my sincere support for the Bill. I am sure that it also has the sincere support of my constituents. Although it is a rather narrow Bill, which deals with administrative frameworks, under your generous chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the debate has ranged rather more widely.
The important fact, of course, is that legislative frameworks can never create the results for which the legislation was prepared. The result arises from the actions of individuals, many thousands of them, carrying out actions as a result of the legislative changes. As far as our relationship with South Africa is concerned, it is not the changes in the law that will re-create the bonds we had in the past, and those which we hope to build in future, but the personal relationships between those who live in this country and those who live in South Africa itself.


I particularly wish to speak about the schedule, because it makes reference to the armed forces of the Republic of South Africa and also the United Kingdom, and about the relationship between those armed forces when there are reciprocal visits. I suppose that it is unlikely that we will ever again have the situation that arose in the second world war, when hundreds of thousands of British service men entered Cape Town on their way to the battle fronts in the far east and the middle east.
My own father was one of those who went into that city, and he was struck by the amazing welcome given to service men by ordinary families in South Africa at that time. We shall never have that scale of interchange of service personnel again.
I represent Portsmouth, which is a great naval base. In that city are those who have family links with South Africa, and they have always prayed for the coming of the situation that we have today, when they can feel free and happy in their associations with that country. They can once again see it as a friendly nation and a good place for their family to live.
I hope that the legislation will facilitate the interchange of naval forces between the United Kingdom and the Republic of South Africa. In the past, there were many links between the two navies; many of my constituents who have retired from the naval service remember the days when they exercised with the South African navy in the south Atlantic from the Simonstown naval base. Many of them say that they were some of the best days they remember, and that it would be marvellous if we could return to such an association.
I trust that young sailors from South Africa will come to our great ports, such as Portsmouth, for training in naval skills. We can offer that to many countries, but on this occasion specifically to South Africa.
I hope that once again our vessels will be sailing to the south Atlantic, to Simonstown, because there is a great security need for a joint naval presence in that part of the world. This afternoon is no time to refer to the conflict in the south Atlantic, when South Africa was not part of the Commonwealth. What a difference it would have made had we had naval facilities then that could have been utilised for the assistance of our armed forces.
The indication in the Bill that we will be welcoming to the armed forces of South Africa as members of Commonwealth visiting forces here will not only mean that we shall welcome them to the United Kingdom but that we shall ensure that our armed forces are represented at joint exercises in South Africa and the south Atlantic.
The Bill is one more step towards the rebuilding of the traditional family friendship which exists between all people in Britain and all the races in South Africa.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) is right to draw attention to the family relationship—so many of us have family in South Africa, my own from the time of the Boer war; I have a cousin who must be the only Myfanwy Roberts in South Africa—and the reservoir of good will which has resulted from the way in which our history has grown up.
It is a great pleasure to follow so many distinguished hon. Members who have spoken with great personal knowledge of South Africa during the past decades, and a joyful surprise to he involved in a debate on South Africa where I am not crossing swords with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I recall that he had a hot line to the old regime and I am glad that he is now reconciled to the new regime—
even the ranks of Tuscany".
It is grand that, if there is such wonderful evidence of reconciliation in South Africa, the least we can do in the House is to share some of that same reconciliation. I recall a remarkable Afrikaner whom I met recently who told me that in South Africa they talked about the liberation of the black man, but that his experience as an Afrikaner and a white man was that it was he who was now liberated in his own country. Therefore, a mutual sense of liberation is part of the prospects, the encouragement, for the new South Africa.
All who have spoken have drawn attention to the fact that this is a technical Bill, but it gives us one of those rare opportunities to debate South Africa. Like many hon. Members I am genuinely excited about the developments in South Africa—
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".
I was a diplomat in 1962 when South Africa left the Commonwealth. The in joke at the time was that the South African representative had said with surprise that so much would South Africa welcome members from the Commonwealth, black and yellow members of the Commonwealth, that they would build a special hotel for them. That was perhaps the last straw which preceded the departure of South Africa from the Commonwealth.
There then followed almost three decades of missed opportunities, political short-sightedness and oppression of some of the brightest and best people in South Africa. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and others have drawn attention to that reconciliation, that forgiveness, which is now so much part of the black experience in South Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who has just left the Chamber, drew attention to the importance of the trade unions in South Africa for education, maturity of approach and moderation.
I want to pay tribute to another group in South Africa whose praises are not sung so much but who so helped to bridge the divide. Future historians will ask why, despite the Bantu Education Act and the oppression of the black man over those decades, when South Africa became liberated there were so many black people with the political maturity to move into positions of responsibility. That is partly due to the trade union movement, to which I pay tribute, but also to the churches which allowed black people to move as far as their talents would take them. One thinks of Archbishop Tutu, not only a wonderful man but a symbol of what churches were doing. Dr. Beyers Naude of the South African Council of Churches and the Reverend Frank Chikane are just two of the people who might feel rather like the first stage of a rocket; they have played their role and can now return to the church.
In the middle and late 1980s, many white South Africans were reading Alistair Horne's book "Algeria. The Savage War of Peace" and wondering whether white people in South Africa would be fleeing the country with only a flimsy piece of luggage as many of the whites in Algeria had done. Having visited the country more than


20 times during the past years, in my judgment one of the fundamental reasons why that did not happen was the influence of the church and the fact that there were grand Christians on both side of what might have been a barricade. That gave an education to both sides. It allowed people to obtain a moderate view and training in administration. The reconciling role of the Church has been fundamental in recent South African history.
I had the privilege to speak on South Africa for the Opposition for nine years. I recall my first visit to South Africa in the early 1980s. I telephoned the man who was then the number two at the South African embassy because I did not want to waste money on my air fair only to be banned on arrival in Johannesburg. That man said that he would not ban me. It is again a happy symbol that that man is now the director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in South Africa—another example of that happy reconciling process in South Africa.
Concurrently, I became senior vice-president of the Association of West European Parliamentarians for Action Against Apartheid—AWEPAA—which tried to show, even in the darkest days when the army was in the townships and despair was all around, that there was a progressive view in Britain and Europe in respect of the South African situation.
There was also the great role of the Commonwealth. Many in South Africa knew that there were Europeans on their side, but they also knew that the Commonwealth, the reconciling, multi-racial, unique Commonwealth—this is the essential part of the Bill—was fighting their corner.
No one has mentioned, for example, the role of Chief Emeka Anyaoku, the current Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. I understand that he wrote a substantial part of the seminal report of the Eminent Persons Group, produced in 1986—or acted as scribe—and, through considerable personal diplomacy in the region, has helped to build bridges to the new South Africa.
It should be borne in mind that the sub-region is essentially a Commonwealth region: virtually all the countries included in it belong to the Commonwealth. The exceptions arc Mozambique—which currently has what that same Secretary-General calls a cousinly relationship with the Commonwealth, whatever that may be, and wants to join—and Angola. The Commonwealth has played, is playing and will continue to play a major role. It is thus hardly surprising that, even in the darkest days, everyone said that once fundamental change had taken place in South Africa one of the first things that they wanted to do was rejoin the Commonwealth. The Bill adds some of the nuts and bolts.
It could all have gone very wrong; but if we believe in miracles in politics, here indeed was a miracle. If there is still scope for joy in politics, here was joy on all sides. A number of us attended the elections last April. I was in Port Elizabeth, and for me the great symbolic time was the moment when I saw a queue of people in the sunshine waiting to vote. The white employer stood with the black servant; black, white, white and black all stood patiently in line—and each vote had the same value. For me, that was part of the great symbolism of reconciliation.
I remain confident about the future. I shall not speak at length about the role of the Commonwealth, because the hon. Member for Hereford—a distinguished former chairman of our United Kingdom Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and now the international president—has already said a good deal about it. We

know, however, that both the international CPA, which welcomed South Africa back to the family at Banff in October—no legislation was necessary for that return—and our national CPA, along with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, have played a major role.
What can we in the United Kingdom do now to help the process? We can, for instance, try to ensure that South Africa does not slip off the screen; despite all the past interest in Namibia, it—alas—has almost done that. We can try to ensure that South Africa remains high on the international agenda.
Training has been mentioned. Even before the fundamental change in South Africa, the Commonwealth commissioned a report on human resources in the new South Africa: that was an important step. Moreover, training can work both ways: just as we can train South Africa's army, police, educationists and provincial government, South Africa can come and train us, helping to teach us how to play cricket and rugby.
The United Kingdom can play a unique role as an advocate for South Africa in the various international forums of which we are part. The UK, indeed, has a unique role in the world because of our membership of so many of those forums.
Let me say a little about the European Union and the Lome convention. This is probably the main current issue. Much has been said about aid, but it is a relatively small though valuable part of the equation. What South Africa wants most is access to an open European market. Along with those of our European Union partners who do not see the Union as a closed circle, we should act as an advocate for South Africa and others, recognising that in fighting for South Africa's cause we are fighting the cause of the region. South Africa is the region's main motor: in energy matters, for instance, ESKOM has played and will play a major part.
South Africa has recently sought what is described as "alignment" of its future relations with the European Union through the Lome convention. The word "alignment" has been used because the South Africans recognise, realistically, that they cannot hope to become full members of the Lome convention framework: as many hon. Members have pointed out, South Africa is unique in belonging to both the first world and the third world, and the two are very close together there.
What interests South Africa most are the trade provisions relating to market access, cumulation and the right to tender for European development fund projects. The European Commission, however, has ruled out the prospect of the Lome trade provisions being applied to South Africa. It proposes a two-tier approach—effectively an agreement between the European Union and South Africa on trade and co-operation and a protocol to the Lome convention, covering the terms and conditions of the South African accession to the convention.
The Commission argues that there would otherwise be trade diversion, that South Africa's position would be in breach of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and that a number of GATT countries would object to it. Which are those countries? For example, given its record, the United States is hardly likely to take the blame for the blocking of South Africa's access to Lomé.
If South Africa cannot diversify and expand its export base, it will be unable to restructure its economy and to bring about the necessary social and economic change.


That is likely to endanger the democratic transition which has taken place as people see their living standards falling as the appalling legacy of apartheid takes its toll. That is the challenge to us in the United Kingdom, and to the European Union. After all those brave words—all those resolutions in the 1970s and 1980s—when it comes to the hard fact of market access, will we allow South African goods to enter our market? If we do not, we shall certainly endanger the democratic process.
We can hold as many seminars and workshops on good governance as we like—of course those are important—but if the economic substructure fails, the great South African experiment will fail. That is the challenge that I present to the Minister in respect of our country, as an advocate for the new South Africa.
I believe that it is in the United Kingdom's national interests to act as such an advocate—not only because of our great historical ties, the large number of British people who live in South Africa and our investments there, but for sheer human and moral reasons: because of the way in which we have acted in the past, colluding with the apartheid regime in some ways. Along, I am sure, with the rest of the House, I welcome South Africa unreservedly as an old friend—a prodigal who now returns. The Commonwealth has played a vital and historic role in the past, particularly in the period of transition; I believe that it is now ready to play, at every level, an important and unique role that no other institution can perform.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Tribute has rightly been paid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy for their practical help during the year or so of South Africa's transition. Tribute has also rightly been paid to individuals and institutions which have helped in the fight against white supremacy over the past 20 to 30 years. Many of those people have been named.
I agree with the tributes that have been paid to the South African Council of Churches and especially to Beyers Naude and his successors. Anyone who had the opportunity to listen to him during the years when he was under a banning order and one normally had to meet him in a church, would have been impressed by the way that one of the leading theologians and seminarians provided a spark which was equivalent to that provided by the young man who returned to South Africa to refuse to wear his army uniform.
When one sees the brightest and best willing not only to speak up but to sacrifice their future position and reputation for what they believe to be right, one appreciates the struggles carried out not only by the prominent examples but, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, by the countless numbers of people who tried to work in the trade union movement and in other civic organisations.
In looking forward I hope that people will support the work that will lead to local elections. I have a specific association with the Educational Trust for Civic Responsibility in South Africa. One of its leading lights is Mildred Neville, who for many years worked with the

Catholic Institute for International Relations providing unbiased briefings and information links with people in this country.
One of the people who worked with Mildred Neville, Tim Sheehy, managed to return to South Africa to work in connection with the European Community aid effort, having had various other roles in the South African Development Co-ordination Conference and in Zimbabwe.
When I was elected to the House nineteen and a half years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Baroness Thatcher, asked me what I was interested in and I said that I was interested in trying to persuade the white supremacists in South Africa and in the Conservative party that they were morally wrong and militarily losers. The positive side was to say that others could benefit from the democracy and the flexible economic system that we have built, which we protect, and from which we benefit. We have one person, one vote, and British Governments do not control as much of the economy as, sadly, the South African Government did.
The schedule deals with visiting forces. Some of the actions by South African Government forces during the years of apartheid were disgraceful and should have been more widely condemned. I draw the attention of foreign Governments to what I think are called the Whitehall guidelines, which are available in the Library. The protocol department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office took the opportunity to express to embassies and high commissions assurances that they would receive the highest consideration. They were also told, "By the way, do not in this country go in for the bully-boy tactics that you use in other countries."
Some of the bombings, assassinations and intimidation were carried out by agents of BOSS, the Bureau of State Security. South Africa was not the only country guilty of such actions but it was more guilty more often, and the Government should have exerted more pressure to eliminate such activity.
Father Trevor Huddleston has been mentioned. Not just in this country but in Africa, people generally owe him a great deal. I link with Father Huddleston the name of Mrs. Jill Thompson who has worked with him over most of the past 30 years. I hope that Father Huddleston will enjoy his time in South Africa. What a blessing it is that he has lived to see his life's work reach a successful culmination. He was helped by the late Tony Rampton and Mrs. Rampton. People like that, prophets who preach often to an apparent wilderness, need support. I hope that many whose names have not been mentioned will be able to share in the tributes that have been paid by hon. Members.
Another clergyman who deserves recognition is Bishop Timothy Bavin, the Bishop of Portsmouth. He gave up his position in South Africa so that Desmond Tutu could rise in the Church and carry on his work more prominently. I hope that Bishop Timothy Bavin will accept the congratulations of hon. Members. They are well deserved.
People have faced many difficulties, some of them arising from ignorance in the general community. Many young people in this country have been sensitised to world affairs by some of the struggles against apartheid. I fear that the Government are making a mistake in reducing funding to the Council for Education in World Citizenship. Work such as that carried out by the council, which provides material encouragement and holds conferences for children in schools throughout the


country, has helped to make people more aware that people in other countries cannot take for granted that which we in Britain take for granted.
I plead with the Government to reconsider their decision to cut severely the funding for the CEWC because that would be a mistake. It is even more of a mistake than the severe cutting of funds for the Commonwealth Institute, although that institute brings home to children what it is like to grow up in the world and not just in one part of it.
My final point is about family and personal connections. In this short debate and in others over the years, it has been quite clear that hon. Members have benefited from the opportunity to visit South Africa and the front-line states. It is a mistake to believe that we can he world citizens without travelling. One way or another we should add to the opportunities to go on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations. We should also take the opportunities that are occasionally offered by airlines or by other countries. We should be able to decide for ourselves whether to go on visits.
Most of my visits to Africa as an individual have been very productive because I have been able to move around and meet, as it were, non-legal people—those who work in townships or even in the more affluent suburbs of Johannesburg. One can also meet people in churches and sometimes in prison. Such opportunities are valuable. We cannot do our job properly in encouraging the Government or in speaking up as British Members of Parliament in other countries if we cannot travel with reasonable independence.
Even if the cost means cutting the number of Members of Parliament, we should provide a reasonable travel allowance to be used at one's own discretion. Those who use it for freeloading and holidays would be discovered, but those who would use it for detailed investigative work of the kind that I have mentioned deserve the opportunity to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wells.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting of Session 1993-94, House of Commons Paper No. 112, on Developing the Parliamentary Broadcasting Archives.
I also move the motion in my role as Chairman of the Select Committee on Broadcasting. By way of background to the debate, perhaps I should explain that the master videotapes of all proceedings in the Chambers of both Houses, and of those Committee proceedings that are chosen for recording by the broadcasters, are transferred to the Parliamentary Recording Unit, which is located in the television control room complex at 7 Millbank. The tapes are retained by the PRU until the end of the Session following their date of origination, after which they are transferred to the National Film Archive, which is responsible for ensuring that the tapes are catalogued and stored in properly controlled conditions, in return for which it receives an annual management fee from Parliament. A substantial historical library is being built up.
Most right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the existence of the broadcasting archives through the tapes of their speeches which they order from the PRU—mostly, I assume, for their personal use—but there is also a small and growing interest from individuals and organisations outside the House. They are making use of archive material for a range of purposes, some educational, some charitable and some avowedly commercial. Many of those uses were not and, indeed, could not have been anticipated when the original rules governing the use of archive material were drawn up. Our report, therefore, represents a modest and—with one possible exception that I will come to later—uncontroversial attempt to bring those rules up to date.
The Committee's 16 recommendations are set out fully in the report, so I will do no more than refer briefly to some of the more important ones. The Committee was especially keen to encourage the use of archive material
for educational purposes, both
as a means of spreading knowledge of the Parliamentary system of government and as a vehicle for portraying some of the less glamorous but important aspects of the House's work".
This debate might come under that heading. It is certainly not glamorous or, I hope, controversial, although it has some importance.
The report therefore endorses the continuation of the existing concessionary rate for tapes purchased for educational purposes, gives the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting the lead role in regulating educational videos featuring parliamentary archive material, and accepts in principle the idea of a loans system, whereby video material could be hired by schools and other educational establishments for a small handling charge.
As I explained earlier, all non-broadcasting uses of archive material are governed by a set of guidelines, and those are published in an appendix to the report. Essentially, they are declaratory in form and, accordingly, considerable scope exists for their interpretation in specific cases—there is scope for judgment. The


Committee took the view that, as the permanent televising of the House's proceedings was firmly established, it was sensible to adopt a somewhat less restrictive approach to the application of the guidelines. As the report puts it:
This implies a presumption that a particular use of archive material… ought to be permitted unless there is a compelling reason why it should not be".
In that context, of particular relevance is the use of videos for campaigning purposes, where the Committee thought it increasingly impractical to seek to uphold a rigid notion of political balance.
The important point to emphasise, however, is that the Committee is not recommending a complete free-for-all. Important safeguards will remain in the form of a requirement on the part of video producers to uphold the dignity of the House and the rights of hon. Members. That does not mean that individual Members can exercise a veto over the use of videos featuring extracts from their speeches, but they will be protected against, for example, editing techniques that distort their speeches or that make them appear to express views which they do not hold.
In addition, the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting exercises a monitoring role and has the right, where she thinks it appropriate, to preview any video that has been the subject of an application to use archive footage.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: One of the disgraceful aspects of American electioneering and, in effect, television party political broadcasts is the practice of picking up a sentence uttered once by a potential opponent and running it over and over again. We cannot do that in this country. I would be grateful to know whether a political party could take an expression by, say, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition and use it in a party political broadcast. Will there be any controls or regulations to safeguard against that?

Mr. Newton: If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a while, I am coming to the specific question of party political broadcasts, which is the area of controversy to which I referred earlier, and where the position is different from what I have just described.
There is one other important way in which the House's rights are protected. In the case of videos produced for commercial gain, a royalty can be levied following discussions between the supervisor and the producers. That provision has already been invoked in a couple of cases, but I would not encourage the House to look to this as a source of large windfall revenues. The market for such material remains relatively small, but it is right that the House should derive some return from whatever profits are earned.
I referred earlier to one possibly contentious recommendation in the report—this brings me to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). It relates to the use of parliamentary archive material in party political and election broadcasts. Hitherto, that has not been permitted, but the Committee concluded, after some considerable discussion, that that was no longer a tenable position, especially in view of the proposed more liberal approach to the use of videos for non-broadcasting purposes. The report therefore

recommends that clean feed extracts—the pictures—may be used in party political and election broadcasts, but with two important provisos.
Those are that the material in question should be taken from a speech or other contribution by a member of the party responsible for making the broadcast, and that it should be included only with his or her permission. That would allow, for example, any of the parties to feature extracts from a parliamentary speech by their leader, but it would not be possible to show a clip featuring a political opponent. I think that that answers the principal thrust of my hon. Friend's concern, which I share.
Some Committee members wanted to go much further than that by removing all restrictions on the use of archive material in party political broadcasts and election broadcasts—which is what my hon. Fried would fear—but, as the House will learn from the minutes of proceedings, an amendment to that effect was defeated on the acting Chairman's casting vote. I was unable to be present at the sitting. If I had been present, there would not have been a need for a casting vote. The matter was settled in that way. I think that that was the right approach.
Perhaps I could briefly mention one other recommendation—that the terms of the licence granted by the Speaker to Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd.—known as PARBUL—should be amended to make it clear that the right to exploit, or to permit others to exploit, the signals for non-broadcasting purposes remain with Parliament from the date of the origination of the material. If the House approves the report tonight, the change will probably be incorporated in the new licence, which will need to be issued when the current one expires in July 1996.
The report makes a number of useful, although quite modest, recommendations that should encourage the more widespread availability and use of the recorded proceedings of the House, but without permitting what many of us would regard as their abuse, which my hon. Friend was concerned about. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members share that objective, and I therefore commend the report to the House.

Mr. John Battle: As the Leader of the House said, the debate is perhaps non-controversial and less glamorous than others, but it is important—slightly more so than some people would imagine simply from reading the title on the Order Paper. It is about how we present our proceedings and how Parliament is interpreted and understood not only now, but well into the next century. New techniques are being used that have moved on a long way from pen and ink and newspaper reporting, and Hansard.
Some of us may recall the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment on back to basics and on fighting the "new British disease" of cynicism about institutions. It was delivered on 14 January last year at the annual dinner held by the president of the Conservative Way Forward group. He opened by saying that he would talk about one of the greatest threats that ever confronted the British nation. After seven pages of his speech he concluded by saying:
Parliament was, 1 think, ill advised to let in the TV cameras in.


I do not think that we can be held totally responsible for the undermining of our institutions such as the monarchy, the Church and Parliament simply because the television cameras have been allowed in here. I welcomed and was glad about that decision. We need to move with the times, but we also need to shape the destiny of the way in which we are presented in televisual terms. I do not accept the melodramatic and pessimistic view of the presentation of our work held by the current Secretary of State for Employment.
As the Committee suggests and as the Leader of the House said, we need to be a little bit wary. Paragraph 62 of the report, under the heading "The Editorial Guidelines", states:
This sort of material will be shown to audiences many of whom will be of an impressionable age.
I suggest that our debates are not a matter for the British Board of Film Classification. It is not for that body to decide whether our debates should be rated as 18, 15, or only to be watched with parental guidance. I do not think that parliamentary speeches could terrify our children.
I welcome the report's recommendations. There needs to be a record—a video record—to catch living history. In this short debate, we should support and encourage the wider use of the parliamentary broadcasting archives for two reasons: first, to enhance the understanding of our parliamentary democracy and increase awareness of its complexity; and, secondly, to earn revenue from our proceedings. There is nothing wrong with earning a return by allowing the material to be used. That implies that we hold the copyright for that material here. The idea that a video of parliamentary proceedings will be damaging does not reflect the fact that there has been a real change in technology with which we are obliged to keep pace. As the report says, we can enhance revenues, but that should be done without reductions in quality.
There is space to expand the scope and use of the archive, not only by Members of Parliament but to disseminate as widely as possible information about the working of the Chamber and the House of Commons. There are questions of royalties and copyrights and respect for the integrity of debate. But I hope that the House can call together the authorities of the House, the Library with its publicity role, the Public Information Office and the Parliamentary Recording Unit to ensure that we have the means to facilitate access to our material as widely as possible.
There is a shift towards seeing the video of our proceedings as a substitute for Hansard. Newspapers were first allocated seats in the Public Gallery in 1803. Two characters recorded events here. William Cobbett wrote for Cobbett's Weekly Political Register and wrote brief summaries for the first Hansard. He sold his interest to Thomas Curzon Hansard and, since then, we have had an official report called Hansard.
One of my great heroes, Charles Dickens, sat in the Gallery noting down our events. In 1831, he was helping with the task of recording debates on the first reform Bill. He took his place as a Gallery reporter working into the night. He commented that the work involved more stenography than creativity. In March 1832, he became a parliamentary reporter for a newspaper called, perhaps surprisingly now, True Sun. He continued to work for the newspaper called Mirror of Parliament. While trying to build up and organise an official parliamentary record, he gained recognition as the most rapid, accurate and

trustworthy reporter. He realised that it was about not just transcription but narration and interpretation. He said that objective dryness sometimes needed local colour.
Interestingly, he moved out of the Gallery to go round the constituencies. At that time, Members of Parliament realised that they could give speeches on soap boxes around the country. There are not many hon. Members here tonight, but tomorrow they will be in their constituencies visiting local events. There was a sense in which the debate moved outside Parliament occasionally. There still needs to be a focus on what happens here. Even now, just as in Dickens's day, there is a danger that the action is seen as "out there" and that what happens in the Chamber is simply the objective dryness.
During the war, I believe that Penguin published three volumes of reports from Hansard, covering the years 1939 to 1944. Just before my time, extracts of debates on the Falklands war were published in order to give people a better understanding of the debates. The Penguin publication was before the days when Parliament was even broadcast on radio, never mind on television.
In recent years, press coverage of our proceedings has diminished substantially. Between 1933 and 1988, parliamentary debates received an average of between 400 and 800 lines of coverage in The Times and 300 to 700 lines in The Guardian. By 1992, coverage had declined to fewer than 100 lines in each newspaper. There used to be separate pages in the main broadsheets. There used to be a page called "The Day in Politics". It has now shifted to "Policy and Politics". Political commentary, sketches and reports of other events around the country have replaced what goes on in the House. In Charles Dickens's terms, there is stronger emphasis on local colour.
At the same time as the decline in parliamentary reporting, there has been a sharp increase in the cost of Hansard. A daily part cost 12p in 1970 and 40p in 1979, and now costs £7.50. That is a tenfold increase over 20 years. Because of the televising of Parliament, newspapers no longer feel that they have a duty to report our proceedings. There is a view that those who are really interested can catch Parliament on television.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Lord President said that there could be a lower cost for this material for educational institutions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a far lower rate for Hansard? If we cannot have a lower cost for everyone, there should be a lower cost for libraries, schools and education researchers. To give those people access to Hansard shortly after it has been produced is far better than waiting until they might buy an annual CD-ROM.

Mr. Battle: We should let as many people as possible have access to what is said here. If it is not reported in the newspapers and is not covered fully on television, we should try to ensure that the information is available. It might help if we advertised and produced the information in a format that people would find attractive. In that way we could sell more copies. It should not be run at a loss. The cost could be recouped by pushing the availability through education establishments and, to go further, to local groups, pensioner clubs, history clubs and even local groups that meet for tea and coffee. In that way more people would find out for themselves what is going on.
The clips on television reduce our proceedings to Question Time, if not Prime Minister's Question Time. We see a spat of sound and fury. When I glance at the


news it strikes me that the way in which the images are presented on television creates an impression of the Saturday night programme called "Gladiators" which my children love and I abhor. We seem to be at odds with one another, swinging down to assault each other and then swinging back to the safety of a perch. I do not think that that image, with the notion of high drama, competing ideologies, for and against, should be the model—nor is it the model—for most of our proceedings. Of course, we have divisions, but it does not really reflect the nature of our debate.
I sometimes think that television now presents politics as a spectacle and, in order to attract the lights of television, hon. Members might sometimes be tempted—I put it no more strongly than that—to go in for what I would perhaps uncouthly call "political streaking". Streaking always attracts attention at cricket, football or rugby matches, but it does not lead to people taking the House seriously.
In other words, it sometimes seems that television has decided that ordinary debates on the detail of laws and budgets are not exciting enough for viewers and can therefore be bypassed and ignored, or that the Chamber is sometimes empty because there is more excitement outside. It thus becomes harder for Back Benchers of all parties to get any coverage of the detailed arguments that they make on behalf of their constituents and parties. If we could make use of the archive, the complex processes of Parliament could be more fully understood.
In his evidence to the Committee, Mr. St. John Parker, a headmaster, who is concerned with the teaching of general citizenship and other more specific academic studies of politics, said:
When one brings students of any age to Westminster they cannot believe what they are seeing and hearing, and I say that in a thoroughly respectful way. It is a very disorganised experience they get, and a very ineffectual one. A suitably edited, and I do not mean faked or over-censored, video film can provide a truthful impression and that is badly needed.
I absolutely agree.
Mr. Sutton, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said in his evidence to the Committee:
In terms of wanting to teach politics to young people one is concerned to deal with the highly emotive and popular topics of the day because they attract attention but there is also a case for looking at the way in which Parliamentary democracy works, the whole business of the Government and Opposition in action which may not be so much up front as looking at the latest controversial issue looked at by the politicians. Those who are practitioners in the business need to relate closely to what is produced so they get what they want and not what somebody else thinks they want as a marketable product. We are talking about youngsters' experience of Parliament. Most of them, if they watch the television news, will see Parliament but a small selection, a 15 second bite of Parliamentary Question Time or a Ministerial Statement. They will have no concept of the real work of the House for 90 per cent. of its time and it is this we can usefully put across to them by making adequate use of the archives to produce programmes of the kind being talked about.
I hope that that will be the use of the archive that we encourage, and encourage in a practical way. We want the Library, the Public Information Office and broadcasters to use the archive to make material available.
It is fair to say that such a move would not mean a monotone approach. I often think that if people sat in the Gallery, watched our proceedings, went for a quiet cup of coffee and then wrote a short account of what had been said, there would be as many different accounts as there are sketch writers. We should bear that in mind when we see our proceedings on video. In other words, there is not one simple and clear account.
My final comments relate to the over-attraction of putting everything on to video and new technology. We can now get Hansard on a CD-ROM that we can attach to our computers and thus call up immediately the most recent speeches made in the Chamber. That might enable us to dispense with the beautiful green bound volumes that some of us collect as a record of our proceedings—it would certainly take up less shelf space—but it is worth recalling that American computer scientists are now warning of the hazards of switching everything on to the new digital medium.
Replacing paper in an electronic record-keeping revolution may, in the long-term, mean losing the records entirely, not least because of the changes in hardware and software. It is possible that none of the information CD records may be intelligible in 50 years' time because we shall have forgotten the technology on which to play them. There may be no machine to access them, and the records may prove irretrievable.
It is worth mentioning that disks themselves are subject to decay, oxidisation and stray magnetic fields and may become unreadable faster than we think. We cannot simply switch to an electronic archive and dispense with Hansard. That is not what the debate is about.
I am told that magnetic tape has a five-year lifespan, as do video tape and magnetic disks. Optical disks are conservatively estimated to have a 10-year lifespan. However, they are comparatively short lifespans compared with that of the first printed edition of Shakespeare's 18th sonnet, which has now lasted for well over four and a half centuries. Therefore, we cannot assume that the electronic medium can replace the written word.
As the Minister said, the key issue in the use of the archive must be judgment. Judgment always operates in a context and that context will change as technology changes—and technology moves fast. Yes, we should presume a less restrictive approach, and we should presume that access is permitted, but we should also state clearly that with access come obligations. We do not want to follow the American model mentioned earlier of party political broadcasts and negative advertising with the use of replays and so-called damage videos. That should not be our intention. We should welcome a commitment to the maintenance of a full archive to enhance the dignity and reputation of the House and individual hon. Members.
Most people do not understand our proceedings, and most wonder why the Chamber is sometimes empty. They may not know that there are Standing Committees, Select Committees and Committees on Statutory Instruments upstairs. Most people do not even know what happens at Prime Minister's Question Time. People still ask me why the Prime Minister always says, "I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago."
It would be helpful if useful material was collected from the broadcast archive to explain how we work and if that material was made available across the nation. If the newspapers are not going to do it and if television is


not doing it, we have an obligation to enhance confidence in our parliamentary democracy and foster understanding of our procedures and faith in political organisation in action as expressed in the House.
The report contained a reference to the role of Hansard sub-editors. Yes, the Hansard office could oversee the new means of communicating our proceedings, but the broadcast archive should not be feared or erased. It should be used in the future to suggest that, although our way of operating may not be perfect and should be updated in time, it is a much better method than is available in many other parts of the world. That might encourage people to have more faith in our parliamentary democracy and support its institutions.

Mr. Nigel Jones: I read with some interest the first report of the Broadcasting Committee. As a relatively new member of the Committee, I found it a dry document but with some interesting passages. I knew that I was going to enjoy reading it when I saw the list of witnesses and found people whom I have never met but who have marvellous names such as Mr. Tune from Newsflash broadcasting consultants and, from the Public Information Office, a duo called Dr. Pond and Mrs. Weeds who, I am sure, gave wonderful evidence.
I whole-heartedly support the commitment in the report to the maintenance of a full broadcasting archive. The report recognises the need to exploit this important resource and explore its potential for being opened to a wider market. At present, it seems predominantly to serve hon. Members seeking extracts of their own speeches. The unedited archive constitutes a key source of historical material. If we had the technology available and Parliament had passed the necessary orders 100 years ago, we might now be able to look at the speeches made by Gladstone and Disraeli. I suspect that most of us would be able to learn a lot about debating style from them.
The archive is not only of educational importance now, but will leave a priceless legacy for generations to come. In the year 2095, people will watch the gladiatorial confrontations between right hon. Members on both sides of the House with some interest.
The archive also provides a testimony to the workings of British democracy, and it needs to reflect that democracy and to show the people out there exactly how we work. An important aspect of the record is that it is a record of Parliament working-it is not intended to be entertainment. Bringing the cameras into the Chamber so many years ago has affected the way in which the House conducts itself, which I find regrettable.
The report examines the potential for making more extensive use of the archive and maintaining it as a more financially viable entity, while putting it to educational use. While the nature and extent of the market for videos featuring archive material is still a subject for debate, the production of video tapes for educational purposes has already met with some success and provided insight into the market. The report mentions the video "Order, Order", produced by the Library's education unit, in collaboration with Force 8 Communications Ltd., which has sold almost 1,000 copies since its launch in September 1992.
Ventures such as that and the production of other educational, special and general interest tapes in conjunction with production companies could provide

more income and perhaps a viable commercial foundation on which to build. To that end, the Broadcasting Committee has fairly comprehensively tackled key issues of pricing, by reviewing the rate card and royalties.
While that will help to ensure that the unit is as financially efficient as possible, the Committee's report asserts the belief that
the operation should be run on an efficient but not entirely commercial basis.
I am sure that if we had to run it on an entirely commercial basis, we would soon conclude that it was not possible to make a profit and it might disappear, which would be most regrettable.
Interested parties can gain easier access to parliamentary proceedings without being hindered by costs imposed by market forces, and the democratic spirit of the set-up is maintained in the report. As we heard from the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, education is a key sector that will benefit from the archive, but it is one that is relatively poor. I shall not deal with the crucial, and relevant, issue of funding of education, much though I am tempted to do so.
We need to look to the future. I was alarmed by some of the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, West about losing the technology to read CD-ROMs. If we move to CD-ROMs, I do not think that that will happen, and I speak with 25 years' experience in the computer industry. Perhaps I should declare an interest in International Computers Ltd. while I am on the subject of computers, CD-ROM and technology. CD-ROM and the digital age are here and the information super-highway will be installed nationwide at some time in the future. I was concerned about some of the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, West, although I would support him about keeping the archive in a readable format because tapes deteriorate.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) was here earlier, and he and I exchanged grimaces about the football result at Bolton last night, which I hope is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are both Swindon Town supporters and in my archives I keep a copy of the 1969 league cup final, which Swindon Town won 3:1 after extra time. It is a much-scratched version, and eventually I shall have to have it copied or I shall not be able to see it again. The match last night stopped Swindon Town from going to Wembley to repeat that great victory.
Video tapes require a lot of space for storage and, given the number of hours that the House sits in a year, they must take up a sizeable amount of space. As the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, video is not durable or stable, and that problem has to be tackled.
I suspect that CD-ROM is the way forward. Its life expectancy has yet to be determined, but the prognosis is certainly more optimistic than that for video, and it is inherently a more stable medium. I envisage the possibility of a public service system similar to video on demand on the information super-highway, which will enable people to dial up the debates of their choice. They might even dial up this debate to find out what happened when we discussed the archives of the House.
With CD-ROM, specific debates will be easier to access, facilitating the editing and production of special interest videos. That process will go hand in hand with the computerisation of Hansard, although I support the


hon. Member for Leeds, West when he says that we must keep a paper record as well. It would be deplorable if we were to let go the paper version of what goes on in this place. There is a job for someone to do—comparing what the video shows and the way in which the good people from Hansard tidy up some of the events in this place. A fascinating exercise—one thinks, "I am sure it wasn't like that," but they do an excellent job.
The digital revolution will have profound consequences for the democratisation of Parliament. Those can be advantages only if we anticipate them now and plan for potential problems, such as the regulation of the use of archive material. The Leader of the House has already spoken about some of the regulations that we think appropriate.
Once the initial investment in setting up a system for the equivalent of video on demand has been made, the cost of maintaining the archive and of making it more widely accessible will be significantly reduced. One of the main problems for the education market is that many teachers simply record coverage of Parliament off television to illustrate a point. That is not only because of cost. Another reason is that they prefer to illustrate lessons with contemporary issues, to which their students can more readily relate. Thus a video produced and purchased in a given month or year is often of little use at a later date. The easier access to a debate facilitated by CD-ROM would obviously solve that problem.
Use of new technology will put parliamentary debates on line internationally and I am sure that there is an export market because whenever I go abroad people tell me how much they enjoy watching our proceedings in the House—usually Question Time. They regard it as entertainment rather than the House at work. I am sure that there is a market to be tapped.
In terms of funding the digital archive, charges could be levied on a subscription basis if necessary—similar to the Internet or the Press Association wire. The charge could be made commensurate with the users' ability to pay, along the lines of the present rate card scheme, which is discussed in the report.
The archive has been set up. We have the resource. Let us continue in the spirit of the Broadcasting Committee's report, to keep it running and extend ,its advantages to everyone now and in the future.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall be brief as I am conscious of having spoken quite often this week. I strongly support recommendation (x) in the conclusions on page xix of the Broadcasting Committee's report. For anyone reading the debate or the report I should explain that there is a slight slip-up on the contents page as the page numbers are given in ordinary and not Roman numbers, which is wrong.
It would be an abuse for slips or deliberate statements made in the House to be used by opponents for political purposes and it is getting away from the normal rough and tumble of election or party political broadcasts. It would be misusing the correct decision to bring television into the Chamber. I am glad that my right hon. Friend was able to report to the House the conclusion that the Committee reached.
We must find ways of making what goes on in the House accessible to people in the country who are interested. I came to party politics rather late—some people may think that I never got there. In the year before I first stood for election, I subscribed to the daily Hansard for a year. I was not earning very much, but it was not a big hole in our finances.
I do not think that I could do that in an equivalent position now. To pay more than £7 a day, five days a week, 34 weeks a year, would be beyond what most people would regard as reasonable. Yet the best preparation for a person thinking of entering Parliament—or for someone who is interested in politics but not in entering Parliament, which may be even more sensible—is to read what is said in Parliament, not what a sub-editor has taken out of a journalist's report.
I do not wish to criticise newspapers unnecessarily, because usually they should be criticising politicians, rather than the other way round. We read in The Times this morning a report of the questioning of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, by one of our Committees, which said that he had had to correct something that he had written in relation to some inquiry, when in fact it was simply changing the word "their" in a letter to either "the" or "his". Readers of The Times will have read that something has apparently gone wrong without knowing its context or scale.
There are other examples. The chairman of the Conservative party was in effect criticised by a leader columnist—also, as it happens, in The Times—yet we were not able to know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) had said. When I wrote to the columnist asking, "Why don't you let us in on the secret?" he mentioned the fact that I had written to him to comment on his comment, but he did not say what my comment was or what the original complaint was. We ought to make what is said quite easily accessible for those who have an interest in politics and in what happens in the Chamber.
Technology will help deliver that. Most of the debate has been about the video record of what is said, which the television cameras help produce. Hansard is digitised now. It would be easy to put that on the Internet. We can have it on local network anyway, but having it on the Internet allows people to pull out the roughly 60 pages a day of proceedings in the Chamber and the roughly 60 pages a day of written answers. If we have a Wednesday session, there may be an extra 40 pages. That is not a complicated thing for the technicians to make available.
However, not everyone will be able to use the Internet. We need to consider what the report says directly about the archive material from the television cameras—and the House can be satisfied that the Committee has done its work well—but also, if it becomes possible to keep a digital record of the video, in the way that one can now of the digitised words in the Hansard report, I hope that the Committee, in its next set of investigations and considerations, will discover whether that can be made available to people free of charge. If the marginal cost of making it available is nil—if people dial in to a solid state data bank—the charge should be nil. That is part of what our portion of democracy should be about.
I return, at the margin of the debate, to Hansard. In the supplementary memorandum submitted by the editor of Hansard, we are told that the only subsidised copies of Hansard, besides those that go to Members of Parliament,


are those that go to rate-funded public libraries. That is not good enough. I do not want to become involved in the economics of Her Majesty's Stationery Office or the copyright, but I believe that we need to find a better way of making the words available as well as storing the pictures.

Mr. Newton: There was a moment when I feared that I would be encouraged by those who control all our lives to make a lengthy speech, for reasons that people may guess, but happily I am not in that position and I wish only to make a few brief remarks in response to the debate.
First, I congratulate all three hon. Members who have spoken in the debate on the constructiveness and thoughtfulness of their contributions, and, in the case of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the evidently substantial research that went into some parts of his speech. I am grateful for their supportive comments.
The only thing that bothered me, as the debate proceeded—as it has done on several other occasions when I have strayed into the Chamber rather than being an active participant in debates that involve the discussion of information technology—was my gathering bewilderment as people spoke about the Internet, the information super-highway, and some person called SuperJANET who appears to be the only person on the information super-highway. I am happy to say that I am not drawn further into that difficult subject and I can concentrate on the more mundane arguments that have been made in the debate. I shall mention three.
First, the hon. Member for Leeds, West rightly drew attention to the role of the Library's Public Information Office and the education unit. He will have noted that paragraphs 45 to 49 of the report discuss the inter-relationship between the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting and those two units. They are certainly talking together and, knowing the people involved, I am sure that they will work constructively together to ensure that each has a good part in helping as much as we can to ensure that sensible and useful educational material is made available.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Leeds, West mentioned the status of the written word, and that subject was picked up in various ways by those who succeeded him in the debate. Recommendation (xvi) of the report is
that consideration be given to the inclusion with all tapes of Committee proceedings of a note to the effect that the official record of the proceedings is the transcript of evidence"—

that is to say, Hansard.
It may be of interest to the House to know that that recommendation was designed to avoid confusion about the status of the tapes vis-a-vis the transcripts, but the Procedure Committee is currently examining—that comes close to picking up an argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—a proposal to enable Members to obtain Hansard transcripts of proceedings in the House on the day of origination, which is at present not practical because we have to wait until the printed version appears on the following day.
Thirdly, the price of Hansard has been mentioned in every speech. That has been the subject of a good deal of comment in recent months, and indeed of a rather critical report from the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government. The House is probably aware, and I am very conscious, that the issue of the price of Hansard is being examined currently by the Administration Committee of the House at the request of the House of Commons Commission, chaired by Madam Speaker. I do not know what will emerge from that, but it is very much a response to the anxieties that have been expressed in the debate and elsewhere.
With that, I need say no more except to express my gratitude to the House and my thanks to the House for being, as I judge, ready to endorse the report of the Committee that I have the honour to chair.

Resolved,

That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting of Session 1993-94, House of Commons Paper No. 112, on Developing the Parliamentary Broadcasting Archives.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL

Resolved,

That, in respect of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Orders of the Day — OFFICE COSTS ALLOWANCE

Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House, the limit on the office costs allowance in relation to Mr. Bernie Grant, for the quarter beginning 1st January 1995 and any subsequent quarter, should be 1.33 times the limit determined in accordance with paragraph (1) of Part A of the Resolution of 13th July 1994 relating to Members' allowances.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Orders of the Day — Natural Heritage

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Peter Hardy: When Madam Speaker allocated the debate—the last this week, and at an earlier hour than many of us anticipated—it was assumed that it would be a debate about the national, not the natural, heritage. As the national heritage nowadays appears to be largely focused on gambling, it is perhaps not surprising that, at the beginning of the week, I was approached by several organisations concerned with gambling. I was relieved to be able to correct their impression.
The debate may be rather more important. The House might care to consider also that, although there is a special care and a justified concern in the House about cruelty to animals, and that was demonstrated last Friday, there should be slightly more anxiety about the survival of a whole species rather than simply cruelty to a few members of that species. That is what the real anxiety is about—the survival of a species and the habitat on which that species may depend.
I sought this debate to give the House an opportunity to consider and have on record comments with regard to European Nature Conservation Year 1995. I attended the Council of Europe Assembly in January, where I presented a report on behalf of the Environment Committee to launch that desirable campaign. I was grateful that the report was unanimously approved there.
This debate allows me to ask the Minister to explain the Government's approach to the campaign and ascertain what official action is being taken and what support the Government are providing. I know that a major aim—perhaps the major aim—of the campaign is to promote wider public awareness of the need for conservation of our natural heritage, and I hope to show, in my relatively short speech, how essential that awareness is. The Minister may then care to comment on the case that I shall present.
In 1975, my private Member's Bill became the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. At the outset, the then Secretary of State, Tony Crosland, ordered that every school should receive a poster illustrating the 20 species of flora and six species of fauna included in the schedules to the Act.
In January, I saw some posters that had been produced by the nature conservation department of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. There was a display of photographs that could make an enormous impact, and the poster embodies a selection of those photographs. Will the Minister take a leaf out of the book of the Department of the Environment in the 1970s and provide one of those posters for each school in Britain? If the aim is to promote awareness, no better step could be taken.
That awareness is needed is adequately revealed by a recent publication produced on behalf of the voluntary bodies concerned with nature conservation. As the Minister will be well aware, I refer to the document entitled "Biodiversity Challenge". It is the work of a team drawn from the voluntary organisations, and not only presents an analysis of conservation need today, but proposes action that should be taken to halt the decline. I shall demonstrate the fact that there has been decline and theie is an acute need for action.
"Biodiversity Challenge" presents an agenda to protect our natural inheritance, and proposes courses of action that can deal with the serious problems. The study is to be welcomed, not least because it is highly responsible but especially because its approach is practical. It demonstrates that the plans for action that it contains have been costed. It shows how much could be achieved and spells out what the costs would be.
Much needs to be done, and we can now see how much can be done for relatively little expense. Will the Minister recommend those proposals to his colleagues in the Treasury with more confidence than might otherwise be the case, because even people employed in the Treasury must have regard to what this country will be like next year and for the next generation?
Action is certainly needed. In the past 25 years, 70 species of British fauna and flora have become extinct, at least in these islands, but some were found only in these islands. So the loss is not merely ours but international. Some of those vanished species may have passed unnoticed, but their loss should not be dismissed lightly.
Shoreham has been in the news recently. A great deal of attention has been focused on the traffic in animals destined for slaughter from that port, but little attention was paid to a vanished invertebrate that lived by Shoreham—I refer to Ive11's sea anemone, a tiny fawn and rose-spotted 12-tentacled creature. It was seen near Shoreham for the last time a few years ago but has now vanished, and the world will probably never see it again. Those who wish to see it will have to look at a picture.
"Biodiversity Challenge" illustrates case after case of that kind. I believe that the Minister's constituency is fairly close to Hampshire or Dorset. A plant that may be found in his constituency is the early gentian, which may be about to disappear. "Biodiversity Challenge" offers a plan that might save it, and the Minister will have constituents who would wish that plant to be saved and may be concerned about retaining an adequate genetic balance in these islands.
"Biodiversity Challenge" lists all the species that have become extinct this century. We can thus see clearly how the pace of decline has accelerated in more recent years. The threat of further losses is severe for, today, many species are endangered. This century, we have lost 49 species of lichen, 53 species of fungi and 13 species of wild flowering plants. Those include the peach-leaved bellflower, summer lady's tresses and lamb's succory, which are no longer to be found in our country.
It is not only flora that have vanished. The opossum shrimp has gone, as have four species of spiders, three species of butterflies, including the black-veined white, the large tortoiseshell and the large blue. I included the large blue in my private Member's Bill in 1975. It was on its last legs then, and one hoped that the gesture might help, but it died out in 1979. An attempt has now been made to reintroduce it, and I hope that it will meet with success. Although I may criticise alien importation, the species being reintroduced is from the same genetic species, so it should be all right.
Eleven species of moth have disappeared in the past 30 years, including the marsh dagger; the feathered ear, which is associated with our county, Mr. Deputy Speaker; and the Lewes wave. Interestingly enough, the last Blair's wainscot was recorded in 1966. Its remaining site on the Isle of Wight was destroyed by burning and draining. What a pity that the Blair's wainscot did not have its


home in constituencies where it might have been more cordially regarded, and where we might have been able to guarantee success. The Essex emerald disappeared earlier in the decade, largely due to lack of grazing, but work on sea defences may have been an important factor.
This century, 41 other species of insect have become extinct in Britain, including a dozen types of solitary bee. Many people may not be concerned about the extinction of insect species, but their loss can affect the food chain. However, millions of people are interested in angling, and the burbot, a species of fish, has vanished. One hopes that angling organisations will co-operate with the voluntary sector with a view to arranging to restock. Yesterday, I mentioned that matter to Lord Mason of Barnsley, who, with his interest in angling and his noted energy, may be able to help in that direction.
I referred a moment or two ago to the 1975 Act, which contained one schedule listing 20 species of endangered flora and six species of endangered fauna. The large blue butterfly has disappeared, despite legal protection, and the last mouse-eared bat expired in 1991.
The most vulnerable species in the schedule of the 1975 Act was the lady slipper orchid. There was only one plant left in 1975. There is still only one plant left today, and it is in Yorkshire. In fact, it is Yorkshire's best-kept secret, and those people who know where it is will not tell anyone else. One can guess the penalty of indiscretion—we would have no lady slipper orchids at all. I am delighted to learn that Kew gardens is living up to its splendid reputation and may produce a few more lady slipper orchids to guarantee the species' survival.
The first species to he protected in Britain were birds, seals and badgers. Birds are held in high regard by millions of our citizens and by some Ministers of the Crown who prefer birds of the feathered variety. Ministers frequently list birdwatching among their hobbies. Therefore, I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will respond to the voluntary sector's call in "Biodiversity Challenge" and thus secure the survival of some birds which are currently in serious danger of extinction.
The pine marten is extinct in Britain, and it is just hanging on in Wales. Its remaining stronghold—if that is the correct term—is Scotland. I hope that the proposals in "Biodiversity Challenge" for the retention and safeguarding of certain habitat will help to restore that species to England, so that it is not restricted entirely to the woodland areas of Scotland.
Some people may say that it is no good crying over spilt milk, that we should not spend money preventing the extinction of species and that we must expect reality. Certain changes in habitat may be unavoidable—for example, climate change and the effect of global warming—but I believe that the British population are concerned about the issue, and that they want the Government to address it as a matter of priority.
Parliament recognises that we are part of Europe. Although some hon. Members may not care to hear about it, Europe has begun to take a quite serious view of the wildlife issue. The European Community has issued directives, not least in regard to the protection of birds, and the Council of Europe has been concerned about habitat for a long time.
When I came to the House in 1970, I already had an amateurish interest in conservation. I pursued the establishment of the Badger Act 1973 and the

Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. However, I quickly recognised that there is little value in protecting a species if we allow the habitat upon which that species depends to be destroyed. I therefore took the view—over the years, the Council of Europe Assembly has adopted it also—that our priority must lie in protecting habitat.
I presented a report on that matter on behalf of the Environment Sub-Committee, which I then chaired, and that led to the Berne convention on wildlife and habitat. I was delighted that the British Government were one of the first to sign, ratify and implement that convention which formed a major part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Government acted swiftly on that occasion, and one hopes that, given the increasing challenges posed by the pace of change, they will maintain their commitment and accept that they have an obligation to ensure that this matter receives the same priority.
Many species are at risk today, largely because we have lost 60 per cent. of our lowland wet grassland, more than half our sand dunes, 60 per cent. of our fen habitat and 95 per cent. of our raised peat bog. Coastal lagoons have been reduced to an area of just 1,300 hectares. Ancient broadleaf woodland, which once covered huge areas of our island, has shrunk, and today covers only 300,000 hectares. The remaining Caledonian forest has been reduced to 12,500 hectares.
Limestone pavement has been reduced to 2,000 hectares—largely as a result of theft, sometimes by people who would be astonished if one accused them of that crime. Only 57,000 hectares of heathland are left on our island. Those remaining areas of habitat are not sufficient to guarantee the survival of scores of species, especially if that habitat is not managed properly.
"Biodiversity Challenge" lists plans for action in each of those habitat categories. It also demonstrates which endangered species will benefit and how that will be accomplished. The proposed plans seem eminently sensible and I hope that each set of plans for the respective habitat groups will be regarded seriously. We need to recognise decline and vulnerability. Far be it from me to advise the Government on how to restore its popularity, but I cannot think of anything that would attract large numbers of people back to the Government's corner faster than the recognition that they are concerned about the environment and about the future of this island.
As Government Members claim to be interested in wildlife, birdwatching and so on, I think that I am entitled to remind the Minister that eight bird species have suffered more than a 75 per cent. decline in their number since 1970—the corncrake, marsh warbler, red-necked shrike, common scoter, tree sparrow, grey partridge, wryneck and roseate tern. Only one quarter of their number that existed in 1970 remains today.
The decline is more extensive in well-known species. Some 16 species have lost between one half and 75 per cent. of their populations since 1970. They include: the skylark, linnet, song thrush and turtle dove. The decline continues. I said recently that it would be extremely sad if children who were studying English poetry read the poems of Clare or Shelley about the thrush or the skylark and had to ask their teachers or parents what a skylark or a songthrush was.
The natural phenomena of these islands have inspired British music, literature and art in all its forms. It would be criminal to deny ourselves and the next generation that


source of future inspiration. The danger that species of that kind will disappear is sufficient to justify my suggestion that the Minister should, if necessary, take on the Treasury with a little more vigour than might have been shown previously.
Some people believe that, if a species is endangered or if it disappears altogether, we can simply bring in another species from overseas, and that it is all very well to import alien species in order to enrich the variety of wildlife in Britain. However, I think that it is timely to remind the Minister not to allow alien importation unless it has been considered very carefully. Some people brought in Japanese knotweed, and that was disastrous. Others brought in mink and allowed them to escape, and they have had a savage effect on nature in many parts of the country.
We should consider others that are causing distress in the Yorkshire dales. Many people there were aware that the Atlantic crayfish was a useful part of the there natural phenomenon. The species is in decline in Britain partly because of pollution, but now it is under severe threat as a result of the marked competition from the American signal crayfish.
We need to recognise that there has to be care about importation. I believe we could certainly justify the movement of some pine martens from Scotland if their habitat can be securely safeguarded in England. There is no problem about that. There is certainly no problem about the carefully prepared reintroduction of the white-tailed eagle by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. That bird became extinct in 1916, but it has now been reestablished. The numbers may not be excessive, but the re-establishment seems to be secure. I hope that the large blue butterfly can also be restored to Britain. Care and consideration are required.
The Minister will probably confirm that some of the commitments and obligations to which I have referred were certainly reinforced, if not originated, by the Rio agreement, and we would be fulfilling some of the obligations which stem from that conference. For that reason, I suggest that we give some priority to the need to secure and properly manage areas of lowland heath. If we did, we would actually be securing the future of 12 threatened species, and we would enhance the areas involved. That approach would provide a very real recognition of the work of a number of wildlife trusts in several counties.
Perhaps the most significant plan of action is that referring to the Caledonian forest. The cost of implementing the proposed 10-year programme would be £700,000 a year. The envisaged programme would not only secure the 12,500 hectares of Caledonian forest that remain, but would add an additional 5,000 hectares. It would cost £700,000 a year, but it would provide jobs. If one provides jobs, one secures contributions from the individual employments and the savings which accrue if they do not remain unemployed, so £700,000 is certainly not an unrealistic figure for a result which would transform many areas and would give us cause for pride internationally. As the Minister will be aware, the Caledonian forest in these islands is of international conservation significance.
Safeguarding the limestone pavements to which I have referred would ensure the survival of a number of species including the Lancashire whitebeam and rigid butler fern. I would prefer species unique to Britain to survive rather than people to be allowed to take more limestone pavement to enrich the rockeries in their gardens. Several other species would be safeguarded by that approach.
The voluntary bodies have analysed the need and the nature of the action required for each of those habitats. They demonstrate what can be achieved, and the benefit could be of historic proportions.
As a Member of Parliament representing South Yorkshire, I should refer to the lowland raised bogs. In South Yorkshire, at Thorne and Hatfield moors in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), two insects, the ground beetle and the mire pill beetle, are not found anywhere else in the world. I know that people are not particularly fond of beetles, although one Conservative Member breeds worms, but not many us share her taste or her political views. Those two species are the only ones in the world; they are found in the Thorne and Hatfield moors and represent a further argument for ensuring that that habitat deserves some priority.
There are a number of studies within the biological diversity. I shall refer to four of them as examples of the plans which the document provides. The freshwater pearl mussel is in the IUCN data book as extremely endangered species internationally. It is still to be found in some waters in Britain, and we have an obligation to ensure its survival. It can be achieved at very little cost. It requires some monitoring, and perhaps an improved provision of special sites of scientific interest status where its main breeding potential exists.
The southern damselfly is known in 18 localities in west Wales, Anglesey and the New forest, and is another species which the Minister might care to protect. It is globally threatened. Its breeding sites need to be protected and SSSI designation could be a considerable help. In respect of the freshwater mussel and southern damselfly, the designation of SSSIs involve remarkably little cost are once again represent scope for successful confrontation with the Treasury.
I mentioned the burbot a moment ago. The sturgeon is extremely rare in serious decline throughout Europe, and we need a European initiative to ensure that that important fish survives. The first step is not expensive. We need adequate funds to ensure proper study of the movement and the prospects for the sturgeon in Britain. Millions of anglers in Britain might welcome that involvement.
The corncrake was once an extremely common bird in the cereal areas of Britain. Its decline has not been sudden; it has continued for a long time. In 1993, there were just 478 active male corncrakes. Unfortunately, apart from a few in Fermanagh in Ulster, the rest are now restricted to the Scottish islands. Perhaps it could be introduced to protected grasslands areas in England, but only when we are satisfied that the habitat can securely sustain the species.
If we are to see an end of decline, or at least a beginning of the end to decline, we have to recognise that the disappearance of species is extremely important. At the moment, and inevitably, concern for conservation is still seen as a matter for the Department of the Environment. As it is the job of the Department of the Environment, other Government Departments tend to


ignore it. I hope that the Minister will recognise that and insist that other Government Departments are aware of their responsibilities.
Conservation is a matter for the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Trade and Industry in particular, and those Departments must be aware that they cannot leave it all to the Department of the Environment; they have to give some attention and priority to the matter. They have to look at their wider responsibilities.
The rural White Paper is due in the summer. Heaven knows, rural life needs to be considered and sustained and rural services need to be regarded. I hope the Minister can assure us that conservation needs will loom quite large in that report and in the consideration which Ministers will give it. After all, conservation is essential for rural life.
I suspect that calls for the wider view would be endorsed by the Government's employees or advisers. Many who are employed in the public agencies—one can think of each of them—are far more knowledgeable, and perhaps far more concerned than most of us, perhaps because they have an almost daily exposure to the factors of need. The calls which I endorsed this evening originate from those who are responsibly involved in our large conservation voluntary bodies. They have professionally observed the disappearance of much wildlife and damage to much of its habitat, and believe that, if there is to be a future cause for inspiration in our culture, steps must be taken to ensure that the genetic inheritance of these islands is secured. ENCY 95 could serve a useful purpose in propelling understanding, and if there is understanding there will be strengthening of intention, and greater priority and urgency will be attached to implementing recommendations and fulfilling commitments that our sense of responsibility to the present and to future generations demands.
I trust that I have not spoken too long but that the Minister will recognise the seriousness of those matters, as millions of people do. I hope that his remarks will give them some encouragement.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for allowing me to contribute to his Adjournment debate. He put the case well. It is a happy coincidence that his debate occurs on an evening when it is possible to exceed the usual half hour. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friends the Minister and the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).
First, I must declare an interest as adviser to the International Fund for Animal Welfare and to its founder, Brian Davis. That is not relevant to my remarks but a matter of record.
I first became aware of rare species in my early teens when, not a quarter of a mile from this place, I was shown a rare spider sitting in a hole in a brick. A few years later, between school and university, I stood in for the director of studies of a grammar school for three weeks while the director, Mr. John Bechervaise, went off on an Antarctic relief ship. In his absence, I read the diary that he had kept when he led an Australian Antarctic expedition. During the long winter, he observed a small jar of earth with a microscope. His tales of the life within that small

amount of earth measuring no more than 12 sq in extended almost to the galaxy of species spoken of by the hon. Member for Wentworth.
For a year, I had responsibility, as a Northern Ireland Minister, for the environment and agriculture, when I was well advised by voluntary groups and civil servants. I am not sure that there are many or any corncrakes still in west Fermanagh. The corncrake does not always remain in fields set aside for hay because it finds an easier life in the fields designated for silage. Unfortunately cutting silage also cuts up the corncrake.
Habitat is rightly identified by those who put forward a biodiversity challenge. One day, we will need to go broader in protected areas. As someone who has heard the corncrake, I would strongly recommend some way, especially in these days of set aside and extensive agriculture—that is, of low inputs—of offering up more of west Fermanagh to non-silage fields. The advantage otherwise to the individual farmer might be surrendered, provided that compensation is generous. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will put that point to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.
In Northern Ireland, the research advice that I received was that less than 2 per cent. of bovine tuberculosis cases might come from badgers. It is believed that most transmission is by cattle nosing each other over fences, and that double fencing would make it possible to keep particular herds of cows or beef apart. It is sad to continue gassing badgers, particularly in south-west England, on the evidence of inadequate research. Thousands of badgers are killed that way each year, but that appears to have no effect on tuberculosis among herds in the south-west. Gassing badgers should be reviewed, but that matter goes beyond habitat.
It is important to use advice from nature organisations in helping to re-establish the red squirrel in areas where it has lost its prominence. The red squirrel is still seen on the Isle of Wight, but I would like to see more of that species in England.

Mr. Hardy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that ill-considered reintroductions of the red squirrel to any part of the country should be avoided, unless it is reasonably certain that it will survive?

Mr. Bottomley: I agree. The otter has returned because the environment changed. It can travel enormous distances. The otter population was seriously declining in the early 1950s, when I first saw an otter. In fact, I pretended to see one, but my sister did so, in Shropshire. If the environment is protected or improved, species re-establish themselves. Of most importance is that they do not die out or fall further behind in the struggle to survive.
The hon. Gentleman made important points about the skylark and songthrush. No one who has heard a skylark would say that it should he lost from this country. It unites our history and much of our cultural inspiration, be it music or poetry, and is a strong part of country life.
Referring again to Northern Ireland, Strangford lough is an amazing place. There is an enormous change of water twice a day through a narrow strait. When large-bottomed trawlers passed through, virtually everything was scraped away. That may be tolerable in some marine areas but not in one unique in the United Kingdom. I did all that I could to ban those trawlers from


the lough. If people tell the Government, "There is a major problem and if you wait too long, it will be too late," the Government have a responsibility to react.
It is really a question of building effective alliances, and I add my support to the simple request of the hon. Member for Wentworth for a way of getting a good poster into all schools. Most of the 14 million children in this country are at school. If they can be sensitised to part of their heritage, they will carry on the work long after we are forgotten. There will be continuing interest not just from those who live in the countryside but those in towns and cities. The battle cannot be won only by people who live and are interested in the countryside. It must be a national effort. The Government are right to take an interest. They have done many things better, but there is more to do.
People who tend urban gardens often want to enrich the soil. If they continue to do that using peat, they will in effect rob one the country of one of its irreplaceable habitats. I hope that gardening pages will support what has been said in the House today and will recommend that gardeners find other ways of enriching their soil, rather than destroying a scarce part of this country's heritage.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): This has been an educational debate. It has been educational for me because the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) have much greater detailed knowledge of species than I have. I am grateful to them, and especially the hon. Gentleman, for giving me the opportunity to explain some of the important developments that are taking place in the conservation of the natural heritage.
Over two years ago, more than 150 Heads of State and Government recognised the importance of conserving the earth's flora and fauna by signing the convention on biological diversity at the earth summit at Rio. That fact was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wentworth. By signing the convention, the Government demonstrated their determination to play a full part in halting the global loss of animal and plant species and genetic resources. We followed this up with the UK biodiversity action plan, which was published in January 1994. The UK is one of the first parties to produce an action plan for biodiversity alongside its sustainable development strategy.
The action plan sets out a strategy for the conservation of the natural heritage for the next 20 years. For the first time in a Government paper the plan draws together existing instruments and programmes for nature conservation and commits Government to a forward strategy and performance targets. A vital part of the strategy will be schemes for the conservation of certain endangered wildlife habitats and species of animals and plants. The aim of the schemes will be to preserve and, wherever possible, enhance the range and biodiversity of naturally occurring wildlife in the UK.
Again, we are the first country to have given a commitment to produce specific costed targets for key species and habitats. We are working closely with the voluntary conservation sector in developing the targets,

under the umbrella of the biodiversity steering group, which is chaired by my Department. We shall publish the targets for consultation by the end of the year.
The commitments to forward action are comprehensive and cover protected areas, the wider countryside, threatened species, public awareness, local initiatives, support for biodiversity overseas and better access to biological information and data.
I think that it will be agreed that the initiatives build on an already excellent record for nature conservation. The Government have had active policies for the conservation of nature for many years which have enabled us to protect endangered habitats and species and meet all our international conservation obligations. They are implemented mainly through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the network of sites of special scientific interest, of which there are now over 6,700 in the UK. The Act gives strict protection to 167 species of plants and to 94 animal species. There is a regular review of the schedules to the Act to ensure that they reflect the needs of the threatened species.
We believe that the policies are working. There are many exaggerated claims about the loss of SSSIs, but in recent years the numbers of them and the area of land that they cover have increased substantially, while within the SSSIs the rate of habitat loss and damage through development and inappropriate management has declined significantly. Importantly, we believe that most of the damaged sites will recover their special interest. The Government have shown themselves ready to address problems where they have been identified, and the measures that are being taken by English Nature and under agri-environmental initiatives should further reduce the incidence of avoidable damage in future.
Statistics are needed to highlight the important issue and help both policy makers and the public to understand whether environmental quality is generally improving, and whether our development is sustainable. In November 1993, the Department published the results of the countryside survey 1990, which is the most comprehensive survey of the countryside that has ever been carried out. The UK is the first country to carry out such a survey, based on the integration of remote sensing and field survey data at a national scale.
The primary aims of the survey were to provide information on the stock of land cover, landscape features and habitats in Great Britain in 1990, to identify change in these by reference to earlier surveys and to establish a new baseline for the measurement of future changes. Not all the changes that the survey reported were positive. For example, it showed a 23 per cent. reduction in the length of hedgerows between 1984 and 1990, and there was a decline in the diversity of plant species in arable fields, grassland and woodland.
The countryside survey 1990 is part of a framework of research that is geared to understanding the effects of land use change and improving access to information on the countryside for policy purposes. It is planned to use this approach as a basis for regular reporting on the state of the countryside, with follow-up work on the causes of the changes reported in the survey and their significance for wildlife and biodiversity, as well as a full repeat survey in the year 2000. To improve access to the results of the survey and other information about the rural environment,


the Department has developed a computerised countryside information system, which is now available as a commercial product.
The Government's nature conservation advisers—English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales—base their conservation activities on working together with landowners and occupiers, and with local communities, to preserve and enhance wildlife habitats and species. I note the possibility that was referred to by the hon. Member for Wentworth and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham of providing posters for schools. I shall certainly examine that.
From my own experience, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Wentworth about the introduction of alien species. As my accent makes clear, I come from a country which suffered from the massive introduction of English species such as rabbits, hares, pigs, cats and dogs—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Convicts.

Sir Paul Beresford: And people, not convicts. Someone's geography is a little inaccurate. The damage to the natural habitat was considerable.
It is because of the success of conservation of the natural heritage in the UK that we depend on the support and commitment of those who own or work the land and on everyone who enjoys our natural heritage. While recognising the need to provide for man's needs—economic, social and recreational—it is important to promote an understanding of wildlife and an awareness of the threats to it, especially to those species or habitats that are threatened or are declining.
The emphasis on understanding and local involvement is a central theme of European Nature Conservation Year 1995. The UK is playing a full part in marking it. The hon. Member for Wentworth has rightly signalled it as a key initiative with its theme, "Look to the future, look after nature". The UK is represented by English Nature on the Council of Europe's committee and ii is co-ordinating a myriad activities across the UK. The UK programme is planned to provide a wide variety of events and projects. The wildlife trusts are playing a central role by providing a local telephone advice service throughout England and co-ordinating a massive appeal called "A Million for Wildlife". The trusts are looking for I million days of volunteer action, and are raising £1 million to help local wildlife in 1995. There are many more initiatives.
European Nature Conservation Year emphasises sustainable management to improve biodiversity as a key principle. We know that truly natural environments have become increasingly rare. Nature has adapted to our management of the land, and much of the natural diversity nowadays is dependent on the continuation of traditional techniques of land management. It is this biodiversity that gives us the variety and character of the landscape that we value so highly.
The aim is not to make conservation of our natural heritage and economic activity mutually exclusive, but to ensure that man's activities are undertaken in ways that do not threaten our natural heritage, and wherever possible in ways that support it. The right sort of economic activity can sometimes protect or even enhance the environment. Good examples are the progressive reforms of Europe's common agricultural policy, which through

agri-environmental programmes and environmental cross-compliance have enabled the Government to promote nature conservation in the wider countryside. We have done this by introducing schemes such as environmentally sensitive areas, the countryside stewardship scheme, nitrate-sensitive areas and the habitats scheme, which assist farmers to manage their land in ways that contribute to overall conservation goals outside protected areas.
The planning policy guidance note on nature conservation was published last year. It gives the most up-to-date guidance to local planning authorities and developers on the Government's policy on conservation of our natural heritage and development control. This specific PPG reiterates the prime Government objectives for nature conservation and also gives a full explanation of the implications for planning authorities of the new habitats regulations that implement the EC's habitats directive. The directive will play a significant part in our strategies for nature conservation in the medium and long term, which are being delivered through the biodiversity action plan.
The habitats regulations complement the strategy and broader initiatives for the wider countryside. At the same time, they make a significant contribution to the directive's aim of helping to ensure biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora throughout the European Union, an aim which the Government wholeheartedly support. The habitats regulations also give legal effect to habitat protection under the EC birds directive, introduced by the habitats directive. Special protection areas, designated under the birds directive and special areas of conservation designated under the habitats directive will together contribute to the European Union network of sites to be known as Natura 2000.
The Government have made significant progress on the classification of special protection areas under the birds directive. In the past year, 23 SPAs have been classified in the UK, bringing the total to 102, covering more than 323,000 hectares. The Government are committed to an accelerated classification programme and further sites are in the pipeline.
Our commitment to the voluntary approach to nature conservation is reflected in the implementation of the habitats directive. We are committed to consultation on the sites proposed for designation under the directive. Advice from the statutory nature conservation agencies about which sites merit designation under the directive is currently being considered. The Government's proposals will be published shortly and a full and thorough public consultation at national and local level will begin.
In the coastal and marine environment, the Government have taken initiatives aimed at enhancing the effective co-ordination of policies for the coastal zone in England. December saw the launch of the coastal forum, chaired and serviced by the Department of the Environment. The forum provides for an exchange of views on coastal issues and builds on existing liaison arrangements at regional and local levels. Policy guidelines for the coast are also in preparation and will draw together in convenient form guidance that is already provided on coastal issues. A best practice guide will highlight good practice and clarify how different elements of coastal zone management plans interact, and a review of byelaw-making powers relating to coastal management is also under way.


Last year, the Government also announced the rural White Paper, which will cover the issues of living in, working in and enjoying the countryside. The White Paper, which will be published in the middle of next year, will present a coherent view of Government policy for the countryside and will demonstrate the integration of rural concerns, across all Government Departments, which impact on the English countryside. There is no formal consultation, but we have written to 420 organisations, seeking their views, and so far have received 362 responses. The aim is to ensure that the resources that go into the countryside are used to the optimum effect, based on principles set out in the sustainable development strategy.
The sort of things that the paper will look at are: the impact of the common agricultural policy on the countryside and the Government's objectives for its further reform; making provision for necessary development and finding ways of providing that in a sensitive, well-designed manner; the dynamic relationship between towns and cities and the countryside; the sophisticated nature of economic activity in today's countryside and the importance of

encouraging further economic development and diversification; the strengths of localism, including resistance to uniformity, the recognition of local identity and the role of local government; strengthening policies to respond to the decline in biodiversity and to protect and enhance the wider countryside as well as the most valued landscapes and habitats.
The White Paper is not about quick fixes or instant initiatives. It is intended to develop a long-term, strategic framework for the future of our countryside. Ministerial colleagues from my Department and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have almost completed a series of seminars around the country to listen to the views of local representatives.
I believe that tonight I have briefly outlined a wide range of initiatives, from the biodiversity action plan to the rural White Paper, which demonstrate that the Government are taking a strategic view of the conservation of the natural heritage, which will take us forward positively and sustainably into the next century.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Nine o'clock.